Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

Oral Answers to Questions — OVERSEA TOURISTS (PASSPORT REGULATIONS).

Mr. DAY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in view of the recognition and financial assistance which the Government have extended to the Travel Association of Great Britain and Ireland, he will consider further simplifying passport regulations to Great Britain for the purpose of attracting oversea tourists to these Isles?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I can assure the hon. Member that the question of the simplification of passport and visa regulations and requirements is under active consideration by His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the policy expressed in the joint communiqué issued in Moscow on 31st March, 1935, on the occasion of his visit, that friendly co-operation between Great Britain and Russia in the general work for the collective organisation of peace and security was of primary importance for the furtherance of international efforts to this end, still remains the policy of the Government?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir; this represents our policy with all nations.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Will my right hon. Friend state whether this security which is mentioned in the question also applies to the lives and property of British and foreign subjects in Russia?

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs the nature of the guarantee to the Portuguese Government on the question of assistance in the event of an attack from Spain, given during the last few months?

Mr. EDEN: No new guarantee of any kind has been given by His Majesty's Government to the Portuguese Government. In response, however, to an inquiry which was made at the beginning of August, His Majesty's Government stated that they have always admitted, and still admit, the validity of the treaties between themselves and Portugal, though they have necessarily retained the right of judging the circumstances in which assistance might be given under these treaties.

Mr. MANDER: Would that mean that if the Portuguese Government were attacked by the Spanish Government, we should be obliged to go to their assistance?

Mr. EDEN: It means what it says.

Sir PATRICK HANNON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can make a statement on the result of the friendly suggestion made on humanitarian grounds to both parties in Spain by His Majesty's Government with the object of saving the lives of hostages and the prevention of indiscriminate loss of life among women and children?

Mr. EDEN: As I informed the House on the occasion of the Debate which took place on 29th October, the Spanish Government were unable to agree to the last proposal made by His Majesty's Government to both parties for an exchange of prisoners and their removal to a place of safety. Subsequently the insurgent authorities also informed His Majesty's Ambassador that they were unable to accept the proposal. They added, however, that they would have no objection to their prisoners being visited by British officials. His Majesty's Government have made it clear to both sides that their offer of good offices in this matter still remains open, and they are continuing the efforts which they have throughout exerted, wherever possible, to prevent indiscriminate loss of life and to alleviate suffering throughout Spain.

Sir P. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say whether any representations of the same kind were made to both sides in Spain at the instance of the League of Nations or any other great Power in Europe?

Mr. EDEN: I am not quite sure about that. We have taken this action on our own account, because we thought we were in a position to do it.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have any steps been taken to take advantage of the reply of the insurgent Government that British inspection of their prisoners would be permitted?

Mr. EDEN: There are great technical difficulties in the matter, and I am very anxious that anything we do shall be done equally on both sides.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is there any reason why the Fleet, for instance, which has been rescuing people from the Spanish Government, should not do something for the people of the other side who are prisoners?

Mr. EDEN: Naturally we do everything we can.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Then can you do something at Cadiz and Seville at once?

Miss RATHBONE: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether his attention has been called to a telephonic communication from the British representative in Madrid to a Sunday newspaper this week in which Mr. Ogilvie Forbes three times used the word "patriot" in referring to the rebel troops; and whether he will request Mr. Ogilvie Forbes to refrain in future from expressions which contravene the spirit of the non-intervention pact by expressing partisanship towards the rebels?

Mr. EDEN: I have made inquiries and am satisfied that His Majesty's Charg… d'Affaires did not use the word "patriot" in referring to the insurgent forces in the course of the communication in question.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what period of time elapsed between the departure from Spain of King Alfonso in

1931 and the recognition by His Majesty's Government of the Spanish Republican Government which was then formed?

Mr. EDEN: Seven days.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: Will the same expedition be used in recognising General Franco's Government as was used then?

Mr. THORNE: He has not got a government yet.

Mr. DONNER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can state what is the approximate number of hostages who remain in the power of the Government of Senor Caballero; and whether he has received any reports recently as to their safety, or otherwise, since His Majesty's Government made its recent request for their exchange?

Mr. EDEN: I have received a certain number of reports on this subject, but I have not sufficient information to enable me to make an authoritative estimate of the number of persons detained. As, regards the second part of the question, such information as I have received cannot be said to be of a reassuring nature.

Oral Answers to Questions — GREAT BRITAIN AND GERMANY.

Mr. MANDER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Government have now received official proposals from the German Government that Great Britain and Germany should work closely together to resist the menace of the Russian Government?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir.

Mr. MANDER: Has the Foreign Secretary seen the statement to this effect made by the German Ambassador when he arrived here, and has it not been carried any further?

Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member asked whether I had received official proposals, and the answer to that is "No."

Oral Answers to Questions — LAKE TSANA.

Mr. BELLENGER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Italian Government still recognise the validity of British and Egyptian interests in Lake Tsana as set out in the 1906 treaty and the 1925 exchange of notes?

Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's Government have no reason to suppose that the Italian Government have any thought of contesting these rights; on the contrary, the Italian Government have on several occasions during the last year or 18 months indicated their intention to respect these rights. These assurances were officially confirmed on 3rd April last, when the Italian Ambassador called at the Foreign Office, on instructions from his Government, to record and re-emphasise that the Italian Government were conscious of their obligation towards His Majesty's Government and had no intention of overlooking or repudiating them. I understand that similar assurances were conveyed direct to the Egyptian Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL. NAVY.

REFUGEES, SPAIN.

Mr. CROWDER: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the number of voyages which have been made by British warships to take off refugees from Spain during the civil war in that country; the number of such refugees who have been so rescued; the cost of these operations to this country; and from which Governments of countries to which these refugees belong expressions of appreciation of the work carried out by the British Navy have been received?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Lord Stanley): Up to 4th November, the number of voyages made by His Majesty's ships solely to evacuate refugees from Spain was 220, representing a mileage steamed of 75,724 miles. Eleven thousand one hundred and ninety-five refugees have been evacuated. The cost of fuel is at present estimated at about £40,000. In addition there has been some minor expenditure for miscellaneous purposes such as messing of refugees, hire of tenders for disembarkation, etc. Details of these charges are not yet available. Expressions of appreciation have been received from the Belgian, Chilean, Dominican, Finnish, German, Japanese, Netherlands, Norwegian, Peruvian, Polish, Swedish, Swiss, United States and Venezuelan Governments, from the Cuban Minister in Paris and from the Senate of the Free City of Danzig.

TUBERCULOSIS (REGULATIONS).

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he is aware that under existing Admiralty Regulations naval officers who are accepted for the Navy after a searching medical examination as Al lives, with no adverse family history, and who after years of service subsequently develop tuberculosis, are discharged without compensation and without sanatorium treatment on the ground that it could not be definitely proved that the disease, though contracted during naval service, had been brought about through that employment; and whether such Regulations will be altered so as to enable officers who have contracted tuberculosis during their naval service to receive some sanatorium treatment before their discharge?

Lord STANLEY: Although tuberculosis is a common disease in civilian life as well as in the Navy, 24 out of the 26 naval officers invalided for pulmonary tuberculosis during the last three years have had their disability accepted as attributable to their service. Officers whose disability is accepted as attributable receive retired pay with disability addition, and also as there are no Service facilities for sanatorium treatment, they receive grants for sanatorium treatment outside. It is reasonably certain that in some of these instances the disease would have developed equally in civil life, but the Naval Regulations are widely drawn in order to avoid inflicting hardship in individual cases. The few officers whose
pulmonary tuberculosis cannot be accepted as attributable to the naval service receive Service retired pay or gratuity according to their rank and length of service. I regret that it would not be possible to justify differentiation between these officers and those invalided for other non-attributable causes by making grants for special treatment to the former.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my Noble Friend not aware of the case of Lieut. Slaney, who was invalided out of the Service, who contracted tuberculosis while serving on a destroyer, who was taken to hospital, and who was dismissed from the Navy while still in bed in hospital, and that his mother had to provide the cost of an ambulance to remove him from that hospital and has also had the charge of providing treatment ever since?

Lord STANLEY: As my hon. Friend knows very well, I have had a long correspondence with him about this case, and unfortunately there was no action which we could take under the existing Regulations. As I said in my answer, the proportion of officers invalided from this disease on non-attributable grounds is very small, but I have the greatest sympathy for them, and anything which we can do to relieve them I shall only be too glad to do.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that that is the object of the question, and that notwithstanding his great personal interest in this case, it was found that the Regulations would not allow of anything being done?

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER: Is retired pay in similar circumstances given to men of the lower deck?

Mr. MAXTON: May I ask the Noble Lord whether he is not considering doing something of this sort in precisely similar cases applying to men of the Royal Navy, in which we are told that the Admiralty is helpless to do anything for men who lose their health in the Service?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is going far beyond the question on the Paper.

CYPRUS.

Captain PLUGGE: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether, as a result of his recent visit to Cyprus, it is proposed to take any steps to improve the existing harbours for the purposes of the British Navy?

Lord STANLEY: The question of harbour developments at Cyprus is receiving the attention of His Majesty's Governrnent, but no decision has been reached.

TIME-EXPIRED MEN.

Lieut.-Colonel C. KERR: asked the First Lord of the Admiralty the numbers of sailors who complete their terms of service each year and become available for other employment?

Lord STANLEY: The average number of sailors annually discharged on completion of engagement during the last five financial years has been 3,201; the number of sailors actually discharged during the last financial year was 3,296.

Lieut.-Colonel KERR: Will my Noble Friend consider a scheme for guaranteeing these men work after they leave the Service?

Lord STANLEY: I am glad to say that a great proportion of these men do get employment,

POLAND (UKRAINIAN MINORITY).

Mr. RILEY: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will take the opportunity of the occasion of the visit to London of the Polish Foreign Minister, Colonel Beck, to discuss the position of the Ukrainian minority in Poland for which Great Britain has certain responsibilities under the Minorities Treaty; and whether he will especially raise the question of the colonisation of the Ukrainian territory in Poland with Polish settlers which is going on at the present time?

Mr. EDEN: I would remind the hon. Member that the execution of the Minorities Treaty is the concern of the League of Nations as a whole, and, so far as I am aware, the matter referred to by the hon. Member is not at present before the League.

Mr. RILEY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the newspaper reports alleging that Poles are being settled by the Polish Government in the Ukraine, and, if so, is not that a violation of the spirit and the letter of the Minorities Treaty?

Mr. EDEN: I have not heard of the report to which the hon. Member alludes, and in any event there is a proper Minorities procedure at Geneva which should be used in these cases.

PALESTINE.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies the approximate additional military expenditure incurred in Palestine as a result of the strike called by the Arab Higher Committee; what part of this expenditure will be borne by the British Government; and what part will fall upon the Government of Palestine?

The SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): It is not possible at the present stage to give


a reliable estimate of the cost of the reinforcements sent to Palestine, or consequently of the amounts which may fall to be borne by His Majesty's Government and the Palestine Government respectively.

Captain MACDONALD: Is the whole of this cost to be borne by His Majesty's Government, or will it be shared by the Palestine Government?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I answered a question on that point put by my hon. and gallant Friend; it is to be shared.

EAST AND WEST AFRICA (GERMAN NATIONALS).

Captain P. MACDONALD: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been called to the fact that during the past few months German nationals halze been arriving in British and Portuguese colonies in East and West Africa, in large numbers; and whether there is any obligation on Great Britain to protect the integrity of Portuguese possessions in Africa to-day, in addition to those under our own administration.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I have seen a report to this effect in one newspaper but, so far as British Dependencies in East and West Africa are concerned, I believe the report to be incorrect. The second part of the question should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs.

Mr. PALING: Does the right hon. Gentleman have any record of the different nationalities going into East Africa, and does he know for a fact whether the suggestion in the question is correct?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The most recent figures give the definite information as to the number of people of different nationalities entering all our territories, and this statement in one newspaper is not borne out by our information.

EAST AFRICAN CURRENCY BOARD.

Captain MACDONALD: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he will state the colonies or territories among which the loss of same

£2,500,000 sterling was distributed, incurred mainly due to the fluctuations of the rupee, by the East African Currency Board.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The East African Currency Board operates in the territories of Kenya, Uganda and Tanganyika, and has this year extended to Zanzibar. It was set up at the end of 1919, and, owing to the fact that it was compelled to take over Indian rupees at 2s. which subsequently fell, it incurred a loss of £916,310 between the years 1920 and 1923. During the same period it sustained further losses amounting to £610,024, due to the redemption of the rupees which had been issued by the German Government in Tanganyika. A further depreciation in the Board's assets has been caused by the fall in the value of silver since 1920 when the Board had to purchase silver for its coinage. The loss on that account stood in June, 1935, at £619,000, though, of course, it varies in accordance with the current price of silver. In addition the Board in 1920 took over the East Africa Protectorate Note Guarantee Fund, and was faced with a liability on that account of £203,200. The loss has fallen upon the East African Currency Board and its effect has been to reduce the Board's assets (which are being replenished from its annual income). No payment has been made from the funds of any of the territories concerned.

Captain MACDONALD: Is the Currency Board being reimbursed for this loss?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: No, the Currency Board is now making a substantial profit and it is considered sufficient to make up for this loss, which accrued for very special reasons when the board began.

EGYPT AND PALESTINE (COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT).

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a commercial agreement has yet been entered into between the Egyptian and Palestine Governments; and, if so, what is the nature and duration of the same?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Yes, Sir. The agreement provides for certain reductions in Customs duties and railway rates in


each country and for future discussions aimed at the general development and improvement of trade relations by these and other methods. The agreement remains in force until August, 1937, and thereafter indefinitely subject to three months' notice on either side.

Mr. ADAMS: Is it the intention of the Government to extend the principle of the reduction of Customs dues with a view to increasing international trade?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is hardly for me to deal with a general question of policy arising out a particular example. Statements regarding the Government's policy have recently been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the President of the Board of Trade, who are more concerned than I am.

COLOURED PEOPLE, GREAT BRITAIN.

Captain ARTHUR EVANS: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that numbers of coloured people in the ports of this country are anxious to return to their homes in the Colonies; that it is only possible for them to do so providing funds for this purpose can be obtained; that the social organisations interested in this question are unable to provide adequate funds for the purpose; and whether he will consider approaching the shipping companies with a view to securing free passage back to the dependencies for a limited number of those who may wish to return to their homes?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: Certain questions relating to the welfare of coloured people in this country are now under consideration. I am not sure that the suggestion made by my hon. and gallant Friend is practicable, but, if any substantial number of these persons desire to return to their homes, the question of what steps can be taken to facilitate this will be considered.

Captain EVANS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this important question has been considered by His Majesty's Government for no less than three years; and in view of that fact, may I ask whether my right hon. Friend will receive a deputation from the social organisation which is particularly interested

in this problem and to which appeals are frequently made for financial assistance?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I understand that there is an inter-departmental committee of the Board of Trade, the Colonial Office, the Home Office and the India Office now sitting and going into this very question. I am not at all sure that I can advance matters as it does not affect only the Colonial Office.

Mr. THORNE: Does the right hon. Gentleman think that the coloured people of this country do as well as the coloured gentleman at Wembley last Monday?

Captain EVANS: asked the Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been drawn to the difficulties with which the coloured population in some of the ports of this country are confronted in obtaining passports or nationality certificates; and whether he proposes to take action with a view to mitigating these hardships?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I was not aware that coloured Colonial seamen in the ports of this country were now experiencing difficulty in obtaining nationality certificates, but if my hon. and gallant Friend will send me particulars of specific cases in which difficulties have arisen I shall be pleased to make inquiries on the subject.

Captain EVANS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a number of cases have already been submitted to the Home Office and that the Home Office received a deputation on the matter before the Recess? In view of that fact, will my right hon. Friend be so kind as to request the committee to which he has referred to consider this point?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: I would point out that the question of nationality certificates is not a matter for me, but for the Home Office. I have no doubt that they are already familiar with it, and the question should be addressed to them. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any examples of Colonial seamen, that is, British subjects or British protected persons, who, he knows, are experiencing difficulty, that would be a matter for me, and if he will give me particulars I might be able to deal with them.

Oral Answers to Questions — AVITATION.

GLIDING.

Mr. DAY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he will give particulars of the experiments that have recently been made in Great Britain with engineless gliding planes; whether any results have been recorded from same; and has the Ministry considered the advisability of giving official encouragement and financial assistance to experimental work with gliders?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): Experiments of this kind are proceeding continually by the gliding clubs and the manufacturers and the results of them are embodied in new types of gliders or the modification of existing types. No record is kept by the Air Ministry of the particulars of the experiments as this would involve elaborate organisation which would not appear to be necessary. As regards the last part of the question, financial assistance up to £5,000 a year is already being given by the Air Ministry to the gliding movement.

Mr. TURTON: Is the financial assistance limited to the manufacture of British-made gliders, or does it also apply to the purchase of foreign gliders?

Sir P. SASSOON: The allocation and administration of this fund is undertaken by the British Gliding Association.

MAYBURY COMMITTEE (REPORT).

Mr. EVERARD: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when the Report of the Maybury Committee will be published?

Sir P. SASSOON: My Noble Friend has not yet received the report, but I hope that it will soon be in his possession.

SERVICES, CHINA.

Mr. CARY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been called to the agreement for the operation of a Japanese air service between Japan and North China; and whether the Chinese authorities are prepared to grant a similar concession to a British undertaking for an air service between Hong Kong and North China?

Sir P. SASSOON: I understand that the preliminary steps have been taken for the conclusion of a Sino-Japanese agreement for an air service between Japan and China but that no such agreement is yet in force. The policy of the Chinese Government has hitherto been to exclude foreign air services; if and when it is changed, all possible steps will be taken to obtain facilities for British air services in China, and meanwhile the whole position in this respect is being carefully watched.

Mr. CARY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether it has been arranged that the aeroplanes of Pan-Pacific Airways and of the China National Aviation Corporation shall be permitted to fly into Hong Kong?

Sir P. SASSOON: Permission has been given for aeroplanes of Pan-American Airways and of the China National Aviation Corporation to fly to Hong Kong.

JERSEY AIRWAYS (ACCIDENT).

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air when the inquiry on the accident happening to a machine belonging to Jersey Airways, on 31st July, will be presented?

Sir P. SASSOON: I hope that the conclusions in the case of this accident will be available for publication shortly.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON: May I ask my right hon. Friend what "shortly" means?

AERIAL ADVERTISEMENT STREAMERS.

Mr. SANDYS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether his attention has been drawn to the danger and nuisance caused by aeroplanes with advertisement streamers flying over the crowds assembled to witness the Lord Mayor of London's procession on 9th November; and whether he will take steps to restrict such flights over large cities?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am not aware that there was any dangerous or otherwise illegal flying on the occasion mentioned, but I would remind my hon. Friend that the enforcement of the regulations governing flying over London is a matter for the police. As regards the last part


of the question, the regulations already prohibit flights over towns except at such altititude as will enable the aircraft to land outside in the event of mechanical breakdown.

Mr. SANDYS: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the success of this kind of advertisement depends on the aeroplane making sufficient noise to make people look up in the air, and does he not consider that that constitutes an unjustifiable nuisance?

Sir P. SASSOON: An aeroplane which is not flying at a low altitude still might make a certain amount of noise.

Mr. LEWIS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in fact, his noble Friend has power to prevent the use of these advertisement streamers altogether if he wishes to do so?

Sir P. SASSOON: No, Sir, we have only power to make regulations for safety.

TRANS-CANADA SERVICE.

Mr. PERKINS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether British or American air-liners will be used on the projected trans-Canada air line; and when this line is expected to start operations?

Sir P. SASSOON: As regards the first part of the question, I understand that no decision has yet been made by the Canadian Government, and as regards the second part, that it is hoped to inaugurate the service by 1st July next.

Mr. PERKINS: Can my right hon, Friend tell the House whether British manufacturers of civil aircraft are capable -of competing with the manufacturers in the markets of the world, and if so why it is that a British subsidised company, subsidised by the taxpayers of this country, has recently bought American aircraft?

Sir P. SASSOON: I do not think that point arises out of this question, which refers to Canada.

ATLANTIC SERVICES.

Mr. PERKINS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what progress has been made in 1936 towards starting a British air service over the North and South Atlantic; and when it is hoped to start these services?

Sir P. SASSOON: Since the agreement announced to the House on 30th July last, negotiations have continued between the Governments of the United Kingdom, Canada and the Irish Free State, and with the United States Government, in regard to the establishment of the North Atlantic service. Active preparation of air bases, fully equipped with the necessary wireless and meteorological facilities, is in hand in the Irish Free State and Newfoundland. It is hoped that experimental flights will begin in the spring of 1937, and that the commencement of the regular service will follow as soon as sufficient experience has been gained. As regards the South Atlantic service, tenders have been received and are now under consideration. The date of commencement of this service depends upon the results of this examination.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL AIR FORCE.

RELATIVE STRENGTH.

Mr. DAY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air for the latest figures showing the present ratio of aeroplane and seaplane strength of Great Britain as compared with that of France, Germany, and Italy?

Sir P. SASSOON: The hon. Member will find all the published information available on this subject in the Armaments Year-Book of the League of Nations, 1936, which has just been issued.

ENGINE MANUFACTURERS.

Mr. ACLAND: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the Ministry still maintains an approved and an unapproved list of engine manufacturers; has any manufacturer been promoted from the unapproved to the approved list since 1920; and, whether invitations to tender for engines have been limited to the approved list, what efforts have been made to secure the cooperation of the unapproved firms?

Sir P. SASSOON: As set out in the recent White Paper on the Government policy in relation to the production of aero-engines, the engines required by the Air Ministry are normally obtained from four firms all of a which have been supplying engines since 1920. The types of engines required are primarily determined by the selection of the aeroplane, and by the firm who design and produce


it; and engines of admirable performance are available. But, as the hon. Member will see from the White Paper, the Air Ministry would not hesitate to add to these firms a good firm which had produced an engine which was suitable for adoption in connection with approved types of aircraft, and which could be produced in adequate numbers by the required dates. The Air Ministry are always ready to supervise the prescribed British type tests on any engine produced in this country. I would point out, however, that the primary need is not for a multiplication of types but for the rapid development and production of proved types of high performance which are the necessary complement of the aeroplanes on order. The most effective help that can be given in this respect by other manufacturers is by sub-contract work in the production of airframes and engines of the types required in the programme. Constant efforts are being made to secure this co-operation, and I am glad to say that they have met with a large measure of success.

PILOTS (TRAINING).

Mr. EVERARD: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air how many civil flying training schools are in existence; and whether it is proposed to increase the number, in view of the required increase of pilots for the Royal Air Force.

Sir P. SASSOON: There are now 13 civil flying training schools engaged under contract with the elementary training of Royal Air Force pilots to which number they were raised to meet the needs of expansion. Additional schools for the purpose of the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, to the number of about 20, are in contemplation.

Mr. EVERARD: Can my right hon. Friend tell me how many pupils there are in the schools already in existence?

Sir P. SASSOON: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put down a question on that point.

PERSONNEL (EMPLOYMENT).

Lieut.-Colonel KERR: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the numbers of men serving in the Air Force who complete their term of service each year and become available for other employment.

Sir P. SASSOON: The average annual number of airmen leaving the Royal Air Force on the expiration of their term of service during the five years ended 31st March, 1935—that is, before the initiation of the present expansion programme—was 1,704. Owing to additional re-engagements and extensions of service to meet expansion requirements, the number will be materially lower for the next few years.

Lieut.-Colonel KERR: Will my right hon. Friend consider a scheme for ensuring that these men get employment after they have completed their service?

Sir P. SASSOON: Everything possible is done in the Air Ministry on that matter.

RECRUITING.

Mr. TOUCHE: asked the Under Secretary of State for Air whether he will make a statement regarding the present position as regards recruiting for the Royal Air Force?

Sir P. SASSOON: Since the expansion programme for the Royal Air Force was announced at the end of May, 1935, some 20,000 men and boys have been enlisted, and I think that there are good grounds for satisfaction with the response to the appeal then made. A continuance of such public support will be necessary to ensure the completion of the defence programme.

Mr. DAY: Can the right hon. Gentleman say how many have been accepted?

Sir P. SASSOON: Over 20,000.

LORD WEIR.

Mr. BELLENGER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air what duties are performed by Lord Weir in connection with the Government's Royal Air Force expansion programme; whether Lord Weir holds any official position under the Air Ministry; and if so, what are the terms of his appointment?

Sir P. SASSOON: As my Noble Friend the late Secretary of State for Air stated in another place on 22nd May, 1935, Lord Weir was invited to act in an advisory capacity in regard to questions of policy associated with supply, production and industry in connection with the scheme of air force expansion. Lord Weir continues to act in the same capacity. He


holds no official position under the Air Ministry in the sense of an executive appointment and there are no terms of appointment which can be quoted except in so far as terms are implied in the announcement made by Lord Londonderry.

Mr. BELLENGER: Will the Under- Secretary say whether Lord Weir works in an honorary capacity?

Sir P. SASSOON: Yes, that is so.

AGE LIMITS.

Sir FRANK SANDERSON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether he is aware that young men who have, at their own expense, qualified for an A licence have been rejected upon their application to the Royal Air Force for training as airmen pilots merely on grounds of their age being 25½ years or six months beyond the age limit for applicants for actual flying; and whether, in view of the need of this branch of the service for keen and qualified pilots, he will allow more latitude in regard to the age limit when suitable candidates offer themselves for service?

Sir P. SASSOON: I am not aware of any such cases. Applicants for short service commissions or for training as airmen pilots who have qualified for an A licence are specially considered up to the age of 26. Perhaps my hon. Friend would let me have particulars of any case or cases he has in mind.

NEW AERODROMES.

Mr. PERKINS: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air the total number of new military aerodromes on which work has actually started since 1st January, 1936; and whether it is proposed to build any underground hangars on any of these aerodromes?

Sir P. SASSOON: The answer to the first part of the question is 14. As regards the second part, it would not be in the public interest to give information upon this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT.

ROAD MATERIALS (COTTON-CLOTH)

Major PROCTER: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is in a position to report on the results of the experiments in the use of cotton-cloth for

road making; and, in view of the importance to Lancashire of discovering new uses for cotton, will he specify cotton-cloth as one of the materials to be employed in new road construction?

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Hore-Belisha): Results of experiments in this country and abroad do not, according to present information, justify me in specifying cotton-cloth for use on British roads.

TRAMWAYS (REPLACEMENT).

Mr. JOEL: asked the Minister of Transport the policy of his Department with regard to the supersession of tramcars by trolleybuses; and whether he can make a statement for the guidance of municipalities?

Mr. HORE - BELISHA: I have frequently expressed the opinion—and I am encouraged by results to believe that the municipalities share it—that the replacing of trains by vehicles not requiring rails in the road-bed makes for the greater convenience of traffic.

ORGANISATION, WAR-TIME.

Mr. W. ROBERTS: asked the Minister of Transport whether his Department has been in consultation with the representatives or organisations of those engaged in the road transport industry with a view to the organisation of road transport in case of war or other national emergency; and, if not, whether such a step is contemplated?

Colonel BURTON: asked the Minister of Transport whether any plan for the distribution of food and other supplies in this country in the event of war has yet been submitted by the Associated Road Operators or other bodies concerned with road transport; whether such scheme or schemes have been adopted wholly or in part; and, if not, whether any plans have been made for the distribution of food or other supplies in time of war or other national emergency?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: These matters have not been overlooked.

LIVE ELEGIRIC RAILS (PROTECTION).

Wing-Commander JAMES: asked the Minister of Transport whether, in view of the danger to human and animal life, he will take steps to ensure that all


live electric rails are adequately protected upon railway systems in open country?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am advised that live electric lines are protected where persons and animals are allowed on the line.

Wing-Commander JAMES: Is the Minister aware that there were 64 casualties last year alone?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir, I was not aware of that. If my hon. and gallant Friend has any suggestion to make where there is any omission of duty by the railway company, I shall be only too glad to hear it.

PORTS (CONTROL).

Mr. De la BERE: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware of the steps that are being taken to establish a monopoly control throughout the ports of this country in like manner to that which the railway companies are endeavouring to establish regarding the roads; and whether this attempt to stifle all private enterprise will be resisted by the Ministry?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am not aware of any such attempts.

Mr. De la BERE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that within 10 miles of the House of Commons there is a place where negotiations have been considered for registration and licensing of various private enterprises?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have no doubt that that would be true if my hon. Friend said it, but I do not quite see the relevance of it to this question. If I can assist him and he will communicate with me, I shall be obliged.

TRUNK ROADS BILL.

Mr. CLEMENT DAVIES: asked the Minister of Transport whether he will arrange to have placed in the Tea Room of the House of Commons a large scale map showing the roads to be transferred under the Trunk Roads Bill?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir.

Mr. TURTON: Will the Minister also include in the map all trunk roads not taken over?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The map contains the roads which I am taking over. If it contained all the roads of the country, that would mean delay.

Mr. TURTON: Will it show the trunk roads that he is not taking over, the large and important roads?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am taking over all the trunk roads, and they will all be shown.

Mr. TURTON: Does the Minister not regard the road that leads to Scarborough as a trunk road?

PROPOSED FORTH ROAD-BRIDGE.

Mr. MATHERS: asked the Minister of Transport in what way the Government consider that the national defence programme prevents the provision of a road-bridge over the estuary of the Forth near Queensferry meantime; when it is considered that the time will be opportune; and whether he is prepared to meet the local authorities' representatives to discuss the desirability of early progress being made?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have nothing to add to the statements made on behalf of the Government on 5th November and yesterday.

Mr. MATHERS: May I ask what stands in the way of the Government giving authority now, or entering into an agreement now, that this bridge should proceed? Is the Minister aware that years of preliminary work will be needed before any steel, for example, will be required in the construction of the bridge?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: That is the question that I have answered. I have referred to the statement which lays down that the Government will feel bound to have primary regard to the overriding importance of the national defence programme, and the demands which that programme will progressively make upon the national resources.

Mr. MATHERS: How long—[Interruption]—how long is the defence programme expected to make such demands upon, for example, steel output as will make it impossible to proceed with these bridges; and may I also ask this important question: Is it agreed by the Government that, when the requirements of


the defence programme have been met, these bridges may proceed, and in what order, alphabetical or otherwise?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: The question "How long?" should be addressed to a higher quarter. The last part of the 'question I also answered when I stated that this decision will not exclude the reconsideration of these projects at a later date.

Miss WILKINSON: Does the right hon. Gentleman mean to suggest by his previous answer that the reason why the bridge over the Forth cannot be proceeded with is lack of steel? If so, will he inquire of the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade why we could not have a steel works in Jarrow, in order to provide sufficient steel both for the bridges and for whatever defence programme is required?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: There was no suggestion in the answer that there was any lack of steel, but there was a suggestion that in the placing of orders His Majesty's Government must give priority to the defence needs of the country.

Mr. MATHERS: rose—

Mr. SPEAKER: Captain Plugge.

Mr. ANSTRUTHER-GRAY: asked the Minister of Transport whether he is aware that the approaches to the new bridge at Kincardine-on-Forth are inadequately sign-posted; and whether his Department are taking steps to have this improved?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Yes, Sir.

BY-PASS ROADS, MEDWAY TOWNS.

Captain PLUGGE: asked the Minister of Transport whether he can make any statement as to the present position of the scheme for a road by-passing the Medway towns, and the attitude of his Department in relation to it?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I am prepared to consider the proposals of the highway authorities concerned as soon as these are determined and received.

MOTOR ROADS.

Mr. RILEY: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has under consideration the planning of broad one-way motor roads from London to Scotland,

London to Lancashire, and London to the West of England?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: No, Sir.

Mr. RILEY: Has the right hon. Gentleman given no consideration whatever to the planning of such roads; and, if that be the case, does he not consider that such roads would be of great national utility?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: I have often given consideration to this matter, but, in a thickly populated and thickly roaded country such as ours, I am not prepared to recommend embarking on the construction of an entirely new road system. I think that our task is to improve the system which we now have.

UNEMPLOYED MARCHERS' PETITION.

Mr. E. J. WILLIAMS: asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to give facilities for the discussion of the Motion which appears on the Order Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and other hon. Members; and if so, when?

["That the representatives of the unemployed hunger marchers be heard at the Bar of the House in support of their Petition, which was presented to the House on Monday, 9th November, and which sets forth certain demands on behalf of the unemployed."]

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The object of this Motion is to enable the unemployed marchers to set forth their grievances at the Bar of the House. I do not doubt that the marchers hold their opinions strongly and sincerely, and I should not wish to challenge the right of appearance at the Bar of this House, if it should appear, by however slender an argument, that grievances or the remedies for grievances had not been properly considered in Parliament. The discussion of grievances is, however, the primary duty of this House; and it is one of its greatest attributes that on all matters of common interest it enables every shade of opinion to be freely expressed. The subjects with regard to which the marchers desire to make their representations, and particularly the family means test, have been debated on many occasions. I do not believe that


to hear the marchers at the Bar would add anything to the information of the House, and such a procedure would appear to be an admission of the inadequacy of Parliamentary representation which I, for one, would sincerely deplore. In these circumstances, I regret that I cannot see my way to give facilities for the discussion of the Motion.

Mr. ATTLEE: May I ask the Prime Minister to reconsider that reply, in view of the fact that the King's Speech contains no proposal for dealing with the ills of the depressed areas except one Measure, which is included in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill and the provisions of which the Chief Commissioner has said are quite inadequate to deal with the situation? In fact, I put it to the right hon. Gentleman, that there is a feeling of grievance in all these areas that, whatever they may do, the condition of the areas is being neglected, and they ask to appear before this House so that they can be satisfied that this House understands their grievances.

The PRIME MINISTER: I much regret that I cannot see that the substance of that question affects the answer which I have given. All these matters will he debated, probably at length and properly so in this House, and the principle, to which I adhere, of the answer which I have given is not, in my opinion, affected by that.

Mr. ATTLEE: In view of that reply, I beg to give notice that I will ask leave at the end of Questions to move the Adjournment of the House in order to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal to-day of the Prime Minister to grant any facilities whatever for the unemployed hunger marchers to voice their grievances to himself, the Cabinet, or the House.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

CONTRACTS.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether, in view of the importance and despite the amount of labour that may be involved in separating out the figures, he will give the total value of contracts placed in different areas?

The MINISTER for the COORDINATION of DEFENCE (Sir Thomas Inskip): I have, as desired by my hon. Friend, considered again the point made in his question, but I am still of the opinion that the labour involved would be incommensurate with the value of the results to be obtained.

Mr. CHORLTON: May I ask my right hon. Friend, if he is unable to give the information, where I may get it?

Sir T. INSKIP: It is not a question of being able to get the information; the question is whether the information can be tabulated without a great deal of labour.

Mr. CHORLTON: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think that he would find the value arising out of the calculations very great indeed?

FOOD SUPPLIES.

Major STOURTON: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that it is more than five months since the Government appointed a committee to advise and outline schemes for safeguarding food supplies in the event of emergency; whether he can account for the delay and state when the committee will present their report and, in view of the urgency of the matter, give an undertaking to arrange for the immediate storage of a year's wheat supply?

Mr. DONNER: asked the Ministers for the Co-ordination of Defence whether, in view of the fact that investigation of the subject has continued for a long period of time, he is now in a position to lay proposals before Parliament to ensure the establishment of adequate grain reserves in the United Kingdom?

Sir T. INSKIP: The Sub-Committee of the Committee of Imperial Defence, which was appointed to advise and outline schemes for safeguarding food supplies in the event of emergency, has made a full inquiry into all the different parts of this question, and from time to time definite decisions on important matters of principle have been given, in order to facilitate further progress. There has been no delay. In view of the nature of some of the proposals now under consideration, it is not likely that any public statement will be made until the final decisions have been reached. Reports on


several aspects of the question have in fact been presented, but I would remind my hon. and gallant Friend that reports of Sub-Committees of the Committee of Imperial Defence are confidential, and are not published. I cannot give the undertaking suggested.

Major STOURTON: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that the submarine menace brought us within a fortnight of starvation in the last War, and that in the next, this menace will be greatly intensified?

Sir T. INSKIP: The importance of that and of other considerations is fully recognised by the committee.

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Does the Minister know that some people in this country are within a day of starvation, not a fortnight?

ARMAMENTS (MANUFACTURE).

Mr. POTTS: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence whether he will now consider the advisability of taking steps for the State to take over the manufacture and control of all armaments?

Sir T. INSKIP: The Government are considering the Report of the Royal Commission on the Private Manufacture of and Trading in Arms. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the Royal Commission have reported that, in their opinion, a system of State monopoly is undesirable.

Mr. POTTS: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, in his opinion, the Government, under State ownership and control, would not be more able to safeguard the nation's finances?

Sir T. INSKIP: No, I am not of that opinion.

Mr. PALING: Does the right hon. Gentleman's first answer mean that the Government have not made up their mind about the proposals made by the Commission?

Sir T. INSKIP: The question addressed to me was in relation to what might be described as nationalisation of the industry. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that that part of the committee's report is unfavourable to the proposal.

Mr. PALING: Yes, but the right hon. Gentleman made a reference to the recommendations of the commission; have the Government reached any decision on the recommendations yet?

Sir T. INSKIP: No, Sir, the Government have scarcely had time to consider the recommendations.

AERO-ENGINES.

Mr. POTTS: asked the Minister for the Co-ordination of Defence the reasons why the Government have placed any aero-engine orders with redundant factories within the United Kingdom?

Sir T. INSKIP: I am not quite sure what the hon. Member has in mind, but I do not think I can usefully add to the information given in the White Paper (Cmd. 5295), in which the policy of the Government as regards aero-engines was fully explained.

Mr. POTTS: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether any orders have been placed with any redundant factories at all in this country?

Sir T. INSKIP: Orders for aeroengines have been placed in this country.

GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS (OFFICE OF WORKS, SUPER ANNUATION).

Mr. MATHERS: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether it is his intention, and if so, when, to establish a proper scheme of superannuation for employes in the service of His Majesty's Office of Works.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. R. S. Hudson) (for the First Commissioner of Works): I assume that the hon. Member refers to industrial staff. Such staff is not confined to the Office of Works, and I understand that the possibility of including Government industrial employes generally in a contributory pensions scheme has recently been discussed on the appropriate Whitley body representing the staff concerned. As a result of that discussion, the trade union side have been informed that the introduction of such a scheme for Government industrial employés would involve substantial


additional expenditure without adequate compensatory advantage. The Government, therefore, do not contemplate any such modification of existing arrangements.

ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: asked the Minister of Transport, whether, having regard to the new proposals contained in the report of the Committee on Electricity Distribution, dated the 8th May, 1936, he is now prepared to publish the evidence given before the committee?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: Evidence was taken by the committee on the understanding that it would be regarded as confidential.

Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE: While I recognise the difficulties of the Minister, may I ask him to recognise the difficulties of the districts and others in this matter?

Mr. HORE-BELISHA: If my hon. and gallant Friend can suggest any manner in which I can assist him or them, I shall be only too pleased.

PALACE OF WESTMINSTER (SCAFFOLDING).

Captain PLUGGE: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, whether the refacing of the Palace of Westminster will be completed by the date of the Coronation, or whether it will be necessary to leave the scaffolding in place during that period?

Mr. HUDSON: My Noble Friend regrets that it will not be practicable entirely to remove the scaffolding by the date of the Coronation, but he will arrange to reduce as much as possible the height of that now in position in New Palace Yard.

INDIA (COTTON MILL STRIKE, PONDICHERRY).

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India whether he can give the House information regarding the stay-in strike which took place in a British-owned cotton mill in Pondicherry at the end of July last; whether he is aware that the British con-

sular representative at Pondicherry notified the French authorities that if the latter would not intervene against the strike he would request the governor of Madras to do so, and a force of police and sepoys was ultimately sent to break the strike; and what number of Indian workers lost their lives during the attack in the cotton mill?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): The hon. Member is under a misapprehension as to the facts. Towards the end of July strikes occurred in the textile mills in Pondicherry, which spread to the British cotton mill there, and, on the afternoon of 29th July a body of strikers in possession of the main gates of the British mill declared their intention of holding the European staff and their families as hostages until their demands were conceded. In response to a request for assistance addressed to the French authorities, a force of French sepoys and police was sent, which succeeded in effecting the rescue of the imprisoned persons. No notification of the kind suggested by the hon. Member was made to the French authorities. I understand that there were no casualties among British subjects, but that one French sepoy and two labourers lost their lives during the disturbances.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the Under-Secretary not aware that a statement of this character has appeared, not only in the Press in India, but in the European Press; and will he tell us how many of the strikers were casualties as a consequence of the attack?

Mr. BUTLER: I have given the hon. Member the information in my possession. In my original answer I informed him that one French sepoy and two labourers lost their lives during the disturbance.

AFFORESTATION.

Colonel CLIFTON BROWN: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, how many acres of the property already acquired in the North Tyne Valley have been or will be planted with trees; and how many acres are intended to be left unplanted?

Colonel ROPNER (for the Forestry Commissioners): Of the 59,208 acres


acquired by the Forestry Commissioners in the North Tyne Valley, 28,575 acres were classified at the time of acquisition as plalitable, and the remainder, namely 30,633 acres, as too good or too poor to afforest.

Colonel BROWN: Is the fact that some of this land is unplantable due to copse?

Colonel ROPNER: It is mostly land that is above the 1,000-feet contour line.

Colonel BROWN: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, to what use is the unplanted area of the Forestry Commission land to be put?

Colonel ROPNER: The land classified as too good for planting will be used mainly for agricultural purposes and forest workers' holdings; that classified as too poor will be used for sheep grazing.

Colonel BROWN: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware that the land at the top, with the forest below, is perfectly useless for sheep grazing?

Colonel ROPNER: We are able to let the land above the 1,000-feet contour line at a small rent.

Colonel BROWN: asked the hon. and gallant Member for Barkston Ash, as representing the Forestry Commissioners, how many forest holdings will be established per 1,000 acres of planted land in the North Tyne Valley?

Colonel ROPNER: The normal number is five forest workers' holdings per 1,000 acres of plantable land. The Commissioners will be guided by circumstances in deciding the precise number to be established in the whole valley.

Colonel BROWN: In view of the fact that for every 1,000 acres planted two shepherds are discharged from permanent Employment, may I ask what is the advantage of putting five men into part-time employment?

Colonel ROPNER: My hon. and gallant Friend is overlooking the employment given by planting and thinning and nursery work, which is largely over and above that given by the forest holdings.

Miss WILKINSON: Does the hon. and gallant Gentelman consider that the total number will afford any appreciable amount of employment to people from the distressed areas?

Colonel ROPNER: The commissioners hope to establish about 70 forest holdings in this area, and of that number about 50 or 60 will be offered to men from Special Areas.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND.

MILK MARKETING SCHEME.

Mr. McKIE: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can now make a statement as to the date when the report of the Reorganisation Commission in connection with the milk marketing scheme will be issued?

The SECRETARY of STATE for SCOTLAND (Mr. Elliot): The report of the Milk Reorganisation Commission for Great Britain has just been presented to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and Fisheries and myself. In accordance with normal practice, the report will be published, but I cannot at present give an indication as to the probable date of publication.

Mr. McKIE: In view of the fact that reorganisation might be held up owing to the non-publication of this report, which was promised in October, will my right hon. Friend use his influence to see that no further loss of time occurs?

HOUSING (GLASGOW).

Mr. STEPHEN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland the number of houses built in Glasgow each year since 1925 under the various Acts; the number under each Act; the number at present under construction; and the housing rate each year since 1925 to the present time?

Mr. ELLIOT: As the statistics desired by the hon. Member involve a lengthy tabular statement, I am circulating it in the OFFICIAL REPORT. The number of houses under construction by the Corporation of Glasgow at 31st October last was 2,626.

Following is the statement:

HOUSES BUILT IN GLASGOW UNDER THE HOUSING ACTS BETWEEN 1ST JANUARY, 1925, AND 31ST OCTOBER, 1936.


During the year
By Corporation.
By Private Enterprise.
Housing Rate.*


Assisted Houses.
Unassisted Houses.
Total.
Assisted Houses.
Grand Total.


1919 Act.
1923 Act.
1924 Act.
1930 Act.
Total Assisted Houses.
1923 Act.
1924 Act.
Total.


General.
Slum Clearance.












Pence.


1925
…
…
300
325
504
32
—
1,161
—
1,161
156
—
156
1,317
3·15


1926
…
…
—
1,285
566
28
—
1,879
—
1,879
493
—
493
2,372
2·74


1927
…
…
—
754
838
2,054
—
3,646
234
3,880
564
104
668
4,548
3·11


1928
…
…
—
116
726
2,732
—
3,574
—
3,574
471
384
855
4,429
3·78


1929
…
…
—
—
546
5,842
—
6,388
—
6,388
563
868
1,431
7,819
3·99


1930
…
…
—
—
942
2,286
—
3,228
—
3,228
76
1,484
1,560
4,788
4·74


1931
…
…
—
—
1,010
1,674
—
2,684
—
2,684
101
472
573
3,257
3·87


1932
…
…
—
—
330
1,852
234
2,416
—
2,416
120
908
1,028
3,444
3·34


1933
…
…
—
—
270
1,729
844
2,843
—
2,843
52
932
984
3,827
3·30


1934
…
…
—
—
240
3,053
1,144
4,437
2
4,439
37
2,226
2,263
6,702
5·03


1935
…
…
—
—
12
304
3,539
3,855
23
3,878
—
—
—
3,878
1·60


1936 (to 31st October).
—
—
—
—
1,300
1,300
291
1,591
—
—
—
1,591
1·39


Total
…
…
300
2,480
5,984
21,586
7,061
37,411
550
37,961
2,633
7,378
10,011
47,972



* From 1924–5 to 1929–30 the rates shown are the actual rates levied by the local authority in respect of expenditure under the Housing Acts. From 1930–31, because of the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1929, no specific housing rate was levied. It is included in the general consolidated rate. The rates from that date are estimated rates based on the deficit as shown in the housing accounts after deducting the amount of the block grant estimated to be applicable to housing expenditure.

Mr. STEPHEN: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he can now state what steps have been taken by the Glasgow Corporation to provide suitable housing accommodation for the two families at 80, Bellgrove Street, Glasgow, who were ordered out by the master of works because of the dangerous condition of the houses when the roof fell in during the recent storm, or, if no such accommodation has been found, when were the tenants informed that it would be safe to resume occupation; and whether the master of works has now certified and is prepared to accept responsibility for the structural and safe condition of these houses in the event of another storm?

Mr. ELLIOT: I understand that one of the tenants returned to his house on 27th October. The wife of the other tenant was informed on 3rd November that the property had been repaired and that it was perfectly safe to return. In the opinion of the Dean of Guild Inspector the property is now structurally safe. In the circumstances no question of the provision of Alternative accommodation would appear to arise. I have sent details of the case to the hon. Member in reply to his recent letter on the matter.

Mr. STEPHEN: Am I to take it that the Dean of Guild Inspector will be responsible if the people in these houses lose their lives?

Mr. ELLIOT: I think the report of the Dean of Guild Inspector is usually taken as conclusive as to whether the structure may be regarded as safe or otherwise.

FIGHTING FORCES (FOREIGN POSTAGE).

Mr. PETHERICK: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will make provision by which senders of letters or parcels to members of His Majesty's Forces serving in countries outside the Empire, for example, Iraq, may be allowed to despatch them with stamps affixed at the usual Imperial rates?

The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Sir Walter Womersley): Letters addressed to members of His Majesty's Forces serving in countries

outside the Empire are normally delivered through the civil Post Office of the countries concerned, and are therefore subject to the same rates of postage as civil correspondence; and I regret that I am not in a position to arrange for any reduction in the postage rates generally applicable to correspondence addressed to those countries in the case of letters of the kind referred to by the hon. Member. There is no Imperial rate for parcels. The postage is based on the actual cost of transmission, including the varying amounts which have to be paid for handling and delivery in the country of destination, and so long as these costs are incurred I am afraid it is not practicable to make any reduction.

TRAMP SHIPPING SUBSIDY.

Lieut.-Colonel SANDEMAN ALLEN: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether in view of the fact that the present tramp-shipping subsidy is for the year 1936 only, he can inform the House of the Government's intentions as to assistance to tramp shipping after the end of this year?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Runciman): The Government propose to submit proposals providing for the payment of subsidy not exceeding £2,000,000 in respect of the year 1937 subject to the same general conditions as apply to the present year These conditions provide for the decrease or disappearance of the subsidy if the average level of freight rates for the year approaches or passes that of 1929. The industry will be expected to make its plans on the definite assumption that no subsidy will be paid after the end of 1937.

Mr. A. BEVAN: In view of the well-known straitened circumstances of the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has put the question, is it proposed to apply the means test?

Mr. THURTLE: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that so considerable an improvement has taken place in the tramp shipping industry that it ought now to be able to do without any State assistance?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The hon. Member will find in due course that there is a


sliding scale in the proposals which provides for the elimination of the subsidy altogether.

STEEL SUPPLIES.

Mr. R. ACLAND: asked the President of the Board of Trade in view of the increasing demand for steel of all kinds, whether he is satisfied with the proposals of the British Iron and Steel Federation that imports of steel from abroad should be reduced from 670,000 to 525,000 tons; and whether he proposes to take any steps to ensure that more adequate supplies are made available?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: As was explained in the White Paper on the British iron and steel industry which was published in the summer as Cmd. 5201, the British Iron and Steel Federation have undertaken to use their best endeavours to ensure that adequate supplies of suitable steel are at all times available to meet the reasonable requirements of British consumers. In pursuance of this undertaking, and in order to meet the increased demands of consumers, the Federation have already arranged with the Continental Cartel for the importation of supplies of steel in addition to those provided for in the Agreement.

Mr. ACLAND: How great is the excess which the British Federation have agreed to?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: The Federation have already ordered from the Cartel about 300,000 tons of iron and steel in addition to the amount provided for in the agreement.

Mr. THORNE: Where can I obtain information about the names of firms that are importing steel?

Mr. RUNCIMAN: If the hon. Member will put down a question I will see whether I can give him the information myself.

Mr. ACLAND: Is it not the fact that with that increase the imports are still less than one-third of what they were in 1929 in spite of the fact that famine conditions exist in the steel industry?

Miss WILKINSON: Is the right hon. Gentleman really satisfied with the position of this increasing importation of steel which could be made by unemployed men?

UNEMPLOYED MARCHERS' PETITION.

At the end of Questions:

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely:
the refusal to-day of the Prime Minister to grant any facilities whatever for the unemployed hunger marchers to voice their grievances to himself, the Cabinet, or the House.

The pleasure of the House not having been signified, Mr. SPEAKER called on those Members who supported the Motion to rise in their places, and, not less than 40 Members having accordingly risen—

The Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 8, until Half-past Seven o'clock this evening.

BALLOT FOR NOTICES OF MOTIONS.

ELECTRICITY SUPPLY INDUSTRY.

Mr. R. J. TAYLOR: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the need for reorganisation of the electricity supply industry, and move a Resolution.

BRITISH SHIPPING.

Mr. HOWARD GRITTEN: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the condition of British shipping and the menace of foreign subsidies, and move a Resolution.

IMPERIAL POLICY.

Mr. DONNER: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to recent European events and the need of a more comprehensive Imperial policy, and move a Resolution.

CONDITION OF THE PEOPLE.

Mr. DAY: I beg to give notice that, on this day fortnight, I shall call attention to the impotence of the Government in face of the hardships and privations of large numbers of citizens, and move a Resolution.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.

That they communicate that they have come to the following Resolution, namely: That it is desirable that all Consolidation Bills in the present Session be referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament; to which they desire the concurrence of this House.

SHORTER HOURS OF LABOUR.

3.48 p.m.

Mr. GORDON MACDONALD: I beg to move,
That, as a means of enabling the worker to benefit from the increased productivity of modern industry, and as one method of absorbing the unemployed whose numbers will otherwise be multiplied when the present trade revival is exhausted, a substantial reduction in working hours is urgently necessary; and this House regrets that His Majesty's Government have repeatedly resisted definite proposals for this reform.
In March last this question was debated on a Motion in a slightly different form. On that occasion the Government reply was given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour. He discharged his duty with his usual fair-mindedness and fairness, but I sincerely hope he will not misunderstand me when I say that I hope the Minister of Labour himself will reply for the Government today. We feel that this is a question that ought to be dealt with by the Minister himself. It is one of those questions that we cannot allow to be dealt with as has been done in the past, by a permanent official of the Department at Geneva and in this House by the Parliamentary Secretary. In March the Motion was defeated though, strange to say, only some 25 per cent. of the House voted against it. In the Debate that we had, more than 60 per cent. of the speeches were in favour. I am hoping that to-night we shall find the ratio reversed. I hope that 60 per cent. of the votes will be given in the Lobby for the Motion, and I will allow for 25 per cent. of the speeches being against the Motion. It may be necessary to remind the House that this is a very vital question at the moment. I should have been very pleased to have seen on the Front Bench opposite a representative of the Home Office. Very long hours are now being worked in the factories and workshops of this country and it is a disgrace to this country. I am sorry that no one from the Home Office is present, but I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will be good enough to convey to them what we have to say relative to the work with which they directly deal. I have here the Annual Report of the Chief Inspector of Factories and Workshops for the year 1935, and I intend reading one or two paragraphs which give some outrageous cases

of long hours. On page 66 of the report it says:
Many of the complaints received about long hours are found on investigation to relate to the hours worked by men. Very long hours are often worked, and complainants are sometimes surprised to hear that there are no legal restrictions. In a small flour mill men were working regularly 7 a.m.-8 p.m. In a rubber works a shift of 7 a.m.-8 p.m. was being worked daily, while in the finishing department of a silk works the men had been employed 80 hours a week when on the day shift and 72 hours when on the night shift.
I notice the name of the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Crossley) attached to the Amendment, and no doubt he will be ready for the next paragraph. I am thankful to the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department for having now presented himself at the Front Bench.
A firm of cotton spinners employed women and young persons in their winding department for periods up to 71 hours in a week as compared with 55½ allowed by law, and the 48 usually worked by trade agreement. The case was aggravated by the fact that insufficient meal times were allowed and continuous spells up to 6¾ hours worked.
I intend to give one or two further cases to the Under-Secretary, as I hold that he and his staff have some responsibility for this condition of affairs. I agree that the inspectors have been round and have instituted prosecutions in some cases, but I am inclined to think that the inspectorate is not sufficiently strong in numbers. I have no complaint whatever to find with regard to the work the inspectors are doing when on the job. Here is another case for the benefit of the Under-Secretary:
Another case of systematic illegal employment of boys between 14 and 18 years of age over a long period was discovered in a large furniture factory. For some time they had been employed from 8 a.m.-9 p.m. Monday to Friday"—
Thirteen hours every day, and no wonder one hears about the need of an A1 nation—
8 a.m.-5 p.m. on Saturdays, with occasional early evenings when individual boys were allowed to leave at 5.30 p.m. or 7 p.m. In some cases boys had worked from 8 a.m. till 10 or 11 p.m., and one boy aged 14 had been dismissed for refusing to work until 9 p.m.
One could go on reading from this document, which was sent out by the Home Office. I cannot quite understand the Amendment which is on the Order Paper.


I am inclined to think that those who have framed the Amendment are unaware of this document. They seem to want to impress upon the House that the Government have done all that is expected, and that they do not expect them to deal with the question of long hours. I imagine that they are thinking about Geneva, and Geneva only. What is happening at Geneva on the question of hours is very important, and I shall refer to it later. I want to tell the Under-Secretary that in workshops and factories the Government have a direct responsibility of seeing that illegal and unreasonably long hours are not worked. We hold the Home Office largely responsible for what is happening inside the workshops and factories of this country. Those in support of the Amendment are trying to tell us that the Government are deserving of some compliments for their activities in connection with the question of long hours. The question naturally is why do we want shorter hours of labour, and how can we get them? I know that on the question of shorter hours of labour we are generally agreed. Even those responsible for the Amendment, because of the very place in the Motion at which they have introduced it, show quite clearly that they themselves desire to see shorter hours of labour.
I want to give three reasons why the hours of labour ought to be shorter. The first is because it will increase the leisure of the workers. I lay stress upon this because there was a time when those interested in industry were doubtful whether long hours of leisure were a good thing for the workers of this country, and whether they would abuse it and it would prove harmful. I shall be surprised if any Member supporting the Government were to advance such an argument to-day. We in this House know the value of leisure, especially those of us who in the years gone by were very busy during the daytime in industry, and very busy in the evenings in some other way. I am not suggesting that we have not plenty with which to occupy our time in the House of Commons, but our life, compared with that which some of us lived in the years gone by, is, comparatively speaking, a life of leisure. We know that the value of any social reform

is determined very largely by the extent to which it enables the human being to enjoy his leisure; by the extent it provides him with leisure and the means to enjoy his leisure. I shall be told that increased productivity has bestowed benefit upon the worker. It has, and I should be the last to deny it. The worker has enjoyed certain benefits in consequence of increased productivity. I believe mechanisation has been a good thing for the worker in many directions and is essential to industry, but I have yet to be convinced that, whatever it may have done to improve some of his conditions and his wages, as it has done in some cases, it has done a great deal to improve his hours. The acid test of any social reform is that it ultimately enables the worker to enjoy longer leisure, and to enjoy it in a better way.
My second reason is that I am satisfied that shorter hours of labour would mean increased efficiency in industry. To-day —and no one knows better than the hon. Gentleman the Member for Central Leeds (Mr. Denman), who I am very pleased to see present—workers in the mining industry are working at a terrific pace. The strain on the nervous system is tremendous, and no worker in that industry can last very long as a fit person unless there is something done to shorten his hours of labour. A short time ago a miners' agent in the Scottish Miners Federation, in dealing with this question, made this statement:
What do I find in consultation and in conversation with medical men in the colliery areas? One who is a very conscientious medical man, and who has practised in a mining community for 30 years, told me that he was surprised that young men at an age when least expected have dilated hearts and other ailments as a result of the terriffic strain that has been set up by this intensive production.
In my opinion the reduction of working hours would result in the workers becoming more efficient. There are those in the House who know the coal industry as well as those of us on this side who claim to know it. We know that the rates of accidents and the incidence of nystagmus have fluctuated with the length of the working day. I ask any one who has intimate knowledge of the coal industry whether he would argue that a shorter working day would not result in fewer cases of nystagmus, whether more fresh air, more ease and


more leisure would not enable a miner to give better results than he gives in his work to-day? I have here some figures which show what is happening in the industry. The percentage of coal produced and cut by machinery in 1913 was 8.5; in 1929 it was 27.9, and in 1935 it was 51. Let me give the figures of tonnage. In 1913 it was 24.4 million tons, in 1929 it was 72 million tons, and in 1935 it was 113.3 million tons. Note the difference between 1913 and 1929, a period of only 16 years. We have something like 19 per cent, increase in mechanisation. Between 1929 and 1935, six years, we have 24 per cent. increase in mechanisation. This sort of thing is continuing. I ask those who are to support the Amendment on the Paper, how long do they think that this rate of mechanisation in the industry can continue without some reduction of working hours and at the same time avoid a tremendous discharge of men from this industry? I have some figures of employment here. Those employed in the industry in 1913 were 1,129,870; in 1929 they were 969,736; in 1935 they were 779,502.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: Can the hon. Member give the increase in mechanisation in industries other than the coal industry?

Mr. MACDONALD: A reduction of 200,000 men in six years is the result almost directly of mechanisation. What I ask is, as that has happened in six years what is to happen in the future? I am asked a question about other industries. In this House we have men who represent different industries on both sides. I have dealt with mining first because I have intimate knowledge of that industry. But I have here also some figures for the motor-car industry. In a certain company in 1922 55 men occupied a week in making a car. In 1935 the work was done by seven men. That is to say that 28 men, or roughly 80 per cent. fewer men, were required to make a car in 1935 than were required in 1922. I want to know how long this sort of thing is to continue.

Mr. CRAVEN-ELLIS: It would help matters if the hon. Gentleman could give his explanation in man-hours.

Mr. MACDONALD: This is a very human question and for the hon. Gentleman to try to bring in some intricate forms is not fair. I know that the legal

mind can find complications in all these questions, but I hope that on this, the first day for private Members' Motions, we are not going to be launched into intricacies and complications on this very human question. My point is that not only would shorter hours give more leisure and result in more efficient workers, but it would be some contribution to a solution of the unemployment problem. I have no desire to exaggerate that point, for I have often felt that there have been exaggerations. In comments by the International Labour Office I see it suggested that a reduction of hours to a 40 hours week would mean an increase of 10 per cent. in the number of those employed. I consider that the three reasons I have given are sufficient to convince the House that something ought to be done on the hours question. If something is not done I fail to see what the future has for us.
I put this further point to the Minister; We are hoping that the making of armaments is not going on for ever. We on this side have no opposition whatever to the provision of all the armaments requisite to safeguard the interests of our country. But the making of armaments is not going on for ever; and, whatever Conservative Members may think, the present improvement in industry in this country is to a large extent a boom. We all know that the slump will come in due course. I ask the Minister to tell us in clear terms what preparation is being made by the Government to meet that slump when it comes? The Government may feel proud that to-day the number of the unemployed is substantially decreased, but the Minister knows that a day will dawn before many years are over when the number will rise again. We consider that there is a responsibility resting on the Government to make plans and prepare for the increased unemployment which will come. Nothing better could be done than along the lines laid down in the Motion that I have moved.
I hope that the Under-Secretary for the Home Office will tell us quite frankly what the Government intend to do. Do they intend to go on simply with the present programme or have they definite plans prepared to meet the emergency when it arises? We consider that the proposals outlined in the Motion would be some contribution towards meeting the difficulty when it does arise. I hope


that the Under-Secretary will be as frank with the House as he usually is. How can what we propose be carried out? If there is a division of opinion in the House it seems to be as to the practicability of the suggestion. Can the proposal be carried out and can we at the same time safeguard the standard of life of the workers? It is not at all wise to avoid the difficulties raised by any question. Reducing working hours is a difficult problem. As an assembly we are agreed, I believe, that it ought to be done if it can be done. Those who will support the Amendment could quite rightly put the question to me, in what way do I suggest that it should be done?
In referring to the Under-Secretary have mentioned a domain over which his Department has some control, and it is in that domain that much could be done. I put it forward as a practical suggestion that the Government, through the Home Office, can do a great deal to reduce the hours of employment in this country. They did bring in legislation to deal with boys and young persons working in shops, and I complimented them on their action. The Under-Secretary knows that the tendency to-day is for employers in shops to employ adult labour because in their case there is no restriction of hours. We know that there are closing hours for shops but that provision does not restrict hours of work. The tendency of employers is to employ adults for extraordinarily long hours. My first suggestion is that in the factories and workshops of the country the Home Office can do a great deal to reduce the hours of work.
I know that when one puts forward what one regards as constructive suggestions there is a tendency to doubt one's good faith. I have no desire to score party points, for if there is any question that is not a party question it is this question. I have not moved my Motion for party purposes. I have moved it to deal with a real difficulty. My first suggestion is that the Home Office should discharge its responsibilities. I am not sure how far the Under-Secretary will be able to deal with some of the questions I raise, but he can get information from elsewhere. The Government itself is a big employer of labour. The Trades Union Congress has tried to get the Government to realise its responsibilities to

the people it, employs. On 26th May last the Joint Council of the Trades Union Congress and representatives of the Amalgamated Engineering Union interviewed the Prime Minister and requested him to introduce the 40 hours week in all Government establishments. The Prime Minister expressed his sympathy with the idea of a shorter working week, but promised no more than to go carefully into the representations made to him. I ask the Under-Secretary to enlighten us further to-day. There has been a good stretch of time for the Prime Minister to do his thinking, and I know that when the right hon. Gentleman has thought and decided on his policy that will be the policy of the Government. I am anxious to know how far the Prime Minister's thinking has gone. Can the Under-Secretary say definitely whether his right hon. Friend is prepared to do something to reduce the hours of work of those employed by the Government?
Here is another suggestion: As we know, we shall be told as trade unionists, why not try agreements? We shall be told that the employers are there and that the workers are there, and why cannot they come to some agreement? I admit that in the past agreements between employers' and workers' organisations have brought about a reduction of hours, but I want legislation on this question now because further agreements are not forthcoming between employers and workmen. Before the Government tell us, employers and workers, to get together, we have a right to ask the Government to help us. Trade union activity has resulted in a shorter working day for the workers but we are finding to-day that that activity is not sufficient. That is why we come and ask for legislation which will make the securing of a shorter working day much easier than it can be as a result of trade union activity. This House has a responsibility for the well-being of the people of this country. I hope, therefore, that the Under-Secretary will be able to give us some explanation as to where the Prime Minister stands now regarding the requests made to him.
There is an international aspect to this question, and it is there that we find great difficulty. The supporters of the Amendment are anxious to put in a bit of whitewashing, but I do not believe that one of those hon. Members feels in


his heart that he can compliment the Government on their activities in regard to this question. I appreciate their loyalty to their own Government and their anxiety by compliments to urge them to do more—in so far as that method is good, I do not mind—but I cannot believe that any one of them is satisfied with what the Government have done at Geneva on this subject. The international problem in regard to hours is more difficult than the home problem. We must have regard to the international difficulty, and my complaint against the Government is that they have not taken the initiative on this question at the meetings of the International Labour Office. Whenever any individual or any government has taken the initiative, our Government have tended to find reasons for not supporting it. If the Under-Secretary can show us that no Government could have done more than this Government has done at Geneva, he will surprise me.
My complaint is that in all that I have read about the proceedings at Geneva I have felt ashamed, not because it was a Conservative Government but because it was a Government representing the British people who were making it difficult to get any international agreement on the question of hours. It may be thought that Ministers are too busy to attend, and that is the reason why they send a member of their Department. No one has more regard for Mr. Leggett than we have in Lancashire, because he has done much for the cotton industry, but we would prefer that the Minister went to Geneva to put the Government case. Although it is known that Mr. Leggett speaks for the British Government, we know that the presence of the Minister of Labour putting the same case would be a very different thing. It would show the Government's regard for the International Labour Organisation. The last thing that I would wish to do would be to say one word belittling Mr. Leggett, but I do not think that he is the right person to represent this country at Geneva on this vital question. It is an indication of the lack of interest taken by this Government in dealing with this question. Some of the other nations attached to the International Labour Office have done more than this country. I am not saying that in all the nations that have done anything the workers are

enjoying the same standard of life as the workers of Great Britain. I still believe that this is the finest country in the world to live in, not because of, but in spite of, the Conservative Government.
An Act has been passed by the French Government, which came into operation this month, which is well worth consideration. I do not think that the French people are more interested than the British people in the welfare of their workers. The British people, especially those outside this House, are anxious that the workers of the country should enjoy as good conditions as the workers of any country. Let me refer again to the mining industry. On the 1st of this month the hours of work in France for miners were reduced to 38 hours 40 minutes, without any reduction in wages. In France there is a substantial reduction of the working week. The working day of the French miner is now 10 per cent. less than that of the British miner. If the French Government can do things like that, why cannot the British Government? We have the best coal in the world, the best miners, we have employers as good as those of any other country, and we have a mining industry equal to that of any other country. If that can be done in France, why not here The French Government took the initiative, and I want to know why His Majesty's Government do not take the initiative.
I have tried to make my case with the utmost moderation and I want all those who oppose us, whether by way of the cutely-drafted Amendment or some other way, to tell the House and the country whether they think the working day of the British worker ought to be reduced. Are the Government in favour of reducing the hours of labour in this country or are they opposed to it? Any reply may need qualification. I do not mind the qualification if I can get a clear answer that the Government are prepared to support the policy of reducing the hours of labour. I fail to see any effective way of dealing with the industrial and economic troubles of this country if we disregard the question of reducing the hours of labour. It is because I cannot see any other way that I am so anxious that the House should face up to the question. It is a difficult and thorny problem, and certainly there are complications, but it can be dealt with, and I hope that the Minister will tell us


quite frankly what the Government attitude is towards the question.
We have been reminded to-day of the million gallant men who gave their lives for this country. They gave their lives thinking that that great sacrifice would be in the interests of the people of Britain. I know of no better way of showing respect for those workers who gave their lives from 1914 to 1918 than for the Government and the House to pursue a policy which would bring more leisure to the workers who remain, and enable them to enjoy that leisure better than those who sacrificed their lives in the War.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to second the Motion, and I would ask the House to examine it in the tone and the spirit of the Mover. If so, we shall get good results from it. We always move an Amendment to the King's Speech, and naturally the Government supporters are up in arms against us and use all kinds of arguments to show that the present system is the best, and they do not give credence to what we say. I would ask them to-day to approach this matter without any feeling of antagonism. In listening to these Debates I have in mind the recent reply of the Minister of Labour, who was very trenchant in replying to us, but he had to admit that this country was behind in dealing with this matter. He blamed the scientists and inventors for having gone too far ahead, with the result that we were unable to keep pace with them. That was an admission that there was something lacking. Later, the Home Secretary, who met very heavy weather, admitted in his reply that if from these benches we could bring forward any suggestion for a solution, the Government would be prepared to consider it. This is one of the subjects that the House might well examine in no party spirit. In times of adversity we all come together to share the burdens and to face them, but it would appear that in times of plenty we cannot meet our responsibilities. It has been said that the time of plenty has covered a long period.
In trying to get to the foundation of this subject I have been looking up some records and I find that we have to go back to 1770 in our investigations on the subject. At that time a man named

Newcomen invented the steam engine, which was improved upon by Watt at a later period. In 1798 Watt looked at his machine and said: "It is perfect, nobody can improve on that,' meaning that that was the last thing that could be accomplished. Within less than 100 years another type of machine improved on the invention of Watt. What has been the result of the great increase in mechanisation that has taken place? Professor Soddy has said that 4,000 per cent. increase in output has occurred within the last 200 years. That is the difficulty that confronts us, and the problem that we are putting before the House is so serious that we ask the House to help us to solve it.
Let us see how this mechanisation has acted on our people. In the mining industry inventions have come along with the result that man power has steadily decreased. At the present time in the mining industry only 700,000 men are wanted as against 1,200,000 some time ago. What are the figures for Lancashire? In the last five years the personnel in the mines of Lancashire has gone down by 10,000, while the output has increased. The output in 1931 of 65,000 men is more than equalled now by the output of 55,000 men. In the railway industry we find that in 1921 there were 735,000 employés, but last year the number was only 580,000, a reduction of 155,000, which goes to prove that all along the line displacement of men is going on. Therefore, the problem that we have to face is how we are going to meet the changing conditions. We say that one method is by reducing the hours of labour and that it can be done without any reduction in wages. That is fundamental. If there is a reduction in wages it follows that the workers will not be able to buy the goods which are produced. It must be understood that when we talk about reducing hours of work, we mean that there should be no reduction in pay.
It has been said that this matter should be left to the trade unions. That implies that if a deadlock occurs we must resort to strikes. I had thought that in our enlightened community this is one of the last things we should advocate. If we advocate shorter hours and the employers resist then we can only get it by means of strikes. That is why we are asking


Parliament to help us in this matter. In addition, the trade unions command a membership of only 4,000,000, whereas in industry there are something like 14,000,000. The trade unions do not cover the whole field of industry, and although they might get some reduction of hours in trades which are organised, they will always have on their flank the 10,000,000 people who are not organised, and if these 10,000,000 are working longer hours it will give the employers an unanswerable argument against any reduction of hours. They will say, "How can we reduce hours and go into the same market where they are working longer hours?"
This proposal is also very important in relation to the unemployment problem. There has been a slight reduction in the number of unemployed. I have a pamphlet here sent out by the Tory party in order to counteract the propaganda we were making in my division. It admits that the number of unemployed in general engineering is about 42,000—I am giving round figures—iron and steel, 28,000; shipbuilding and ship repairing, 45,000; cotton, 67,000; woollen and worsted, 24,000; silk and artificial silk, 6,000; building, 109,000; coalmining, 190,000; motor vehicles, 19,000; electrical goods, 7,000, and it says that the total in all trades was 648,000. Whatever may happen, it is recognised that although there may be an improvement of trade there will always be left what is known as the hard core of unemployed which is estimated at 500,000. Is it right that we should look calmly on that? Ought we not to do something to meet that problem? I say that in the way suggested by this Motion we could remove some of those who are unemployed and give them a chance of earning their living. I may be asked, "How would you do it?" I say that we should examine some of the arduous industries in which long hours are worked. I have here a report drawn up by a medical officer who was asked to examine a number of men working in a deep mine in Lancashire. He says:
This is a very deep mine—one of the deepest in Lancashire—the shaft being over 3,000 feet deep. The working place of these men is about 4,000 feet deep, the working temperature is very high, the average air temperature 96.87 F. dry bulb, and 79½ F. wet bulb; the water temperature 112 F. The roof is from 2 ft. 6 in. to 3 ft.

high and the working atmosphere is very steamy. The men work quite naked except for a pair of clogs; water is continually oozing from the floor necessitating working in water.
He goes on to say that it is impossible for these men to keep at their work longer than six months at a time, and that they are suffering from break-outs on the body. That is a matter which any intelligent Government would examine at once. Where men are working in very deep places I think an attempt should be made to reduce their working hours, because it would be of advantage to the community at large and would do something to ease the problem of unemployment. Such a reduction of hours would be a real benefit to the community. But there is no attempt by the Government in this direction. It is said that the question of costs would operate. I think there is something greater than the question of costs, and that is the working conditions of our people.
I want now to examine the Amendment. I confess that I find it very difficult to find anything in it to oppose. I have gone through it very carefully. The first part calls attention to the need for shorter hours of labour, a point on which I think we are agreed, as a means of enabling the worker to benefit from the increased productivity of modern industry. But I notice that the Amendment strikes out the words:
and as one method of absorbing the unemployed.
I should have thought that we were also agreed upon that. Then the Amendment says:
and approves the action of His Majesty's Government in resisting proposals which would endanger the earnings of British workers.
What is meant by the word "prosperity"? That is an important point. The question of prosperity does not apply to one particular industry. You must have in mind the nation as a whole, and what it means. Last night in the outer Hall I wandered among the people who were there, and the tragedy of the situation struck me very deeply. I asked myself, what is the difference between myself and the men who were assembled here? But for just a fortunate turn I should have been one of them appealing to the House of Commons for help. Have hon. Members realised what folly it is that we should have thousands of men who cannot


get a job through no fault of their own, and that at a time of prosperity and great productivity we cannot utilise the benefits which modern methods have brought and so bring a feeling of good will among all citizens This is the kind of prosperity which the House should have in mind. It is not right—I am speaking to hon. Members opposite—that they should have in mind some individual firm and what it means to that firm if this proposal were applied to industry. We are here to consider what will benefit the whole nation, and we must ask ourselves whether such a change as we suggest will bring well-being to the nation. I say that it would.
Last night the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook (Mr. Amery) talked about recruiting for the Army and asked how we could hope to get the recruits if when they had finished with the Army their career was blighted when they got back to civil life. Ought not that argument also to apply to the industrial worker? Has he not as much right to expect his share of work as everybody else? I would remind the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that when a soldier comes out of the Army and takes on a job it means that a civilian is put out of work. Therefore, while I do not disagree with the argument of the right hon. Member, that work ought to be found for them, I say that it must not mean the displacement of civilians. In our state of society the civilian and the soldier are doing their duty to the community and both are entitled to recognition by the State. This can only be by his House providing work for them, and something might be done in the way suggested by the Motion. I know the difficulties in the matter, and if you asked me to bring forward a plan showing how it could be done profitably I admit that I could not do so. But we are appealing to the Government to examine this question. The Board of Trade, the Ministry of Labour and the Home Office should get together and devise some scheme by which those trades and industries which are being overworked might be able to reduce their working hours and thus reduce the number of unemployed in those trades. We are putting forward the Motion in the hope of arresting the attention of the House, and in a time of boasted prosperity this is an occasion when the House

of Commons could really do something useful.

4.45 p.m.

Mr. STUART RUSSELL: I beg to move, in line 2, to leave out from "industry" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:
hours of work should be reduced where-ever this can be done without detriment to the prosperity of the industry concerned, and approves the action of His Majesty's Government in resisting proposals which would endanger the earnings of British workers.
I think there will be general agreement, broadly speaking, on the abstract proposition that has been so ably moved and seconded from the Opposition Benches. I think, too, there will be a general feeling that the case which the hon. Members put was stated with very great moderation. In fact, as regards the whole principle of reducing hours of work wherever it is possible, I do not think there is very much difference in the House. It is when one studies the problem and tries to satisfy oneself that the reduction of hours really will react to the benefit of the workers of this country, that disagreement arises.
I would like to take up one or two of the points made by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Macdonald). He said that hours should be shortened because, first, it would increase the leisure of the workers. I am certain there is not one hon. Member, whatever may be his party, who will not agree with that. The hon. Member said that, secondly, shorter hours of labour would mean increased efficiency in industry. Again, I am prepared to accept that, as will, I think, most of my colleagues on this side of the House. Lastly, the hon. Member said that the reduction of working hours would make some contribution to dealing with the unemployment problem. It is with the last of the reasons which the hon. Member gave that I have to quarrel—but I will refer to that later on. The hon. Member referred to the present boom in industry and to the question of armaments. It is true—I think hon. Members on this side are only too conscious of the fact—that a certain part of the revival which is taking place in this country to-day is due to the existence of the armaments programme, but I think that is by no means the sole or even the most important cause. I believe that the strides which have been made by British


industry during the last three or four years have been due very largely to the efforts of the Government in restoring confidence, a psychological factor which is very often overlooked. I think the trade revival is based on a very sound foundation, and, although one dislikes being a prophet, I cannot agree with the proposition that in the course of the next two or three years there is likely to be a slump.
In analysing the problem of shorter working hours, there is one very obvious approach. We can take the point of view that, in order to give increased leisure to the workers so as to enable them to take advantage of the increased productivity of industry, we will reduce hours of labour and reduce wages. That is one approach to the problem, but it is not an approach which I or hon. Members on this side like, and I am certain it is not a method that would be approved of by the workers or, as I think has been made explicit, by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker). Therefore, we are driven back to the second approach, that is to say, that there should be a reduction of working hours combined with the maintenance of wages. If that could be done, or if I felt for my part that it was possible, then, irrespective of party, I would support the Motion that has been moved; but I say frankly that I do not believe that shortened hours of labour, except in a few cases, would react to the advantage generally of the workers of this country.
The hon. Member who moved the Motion referred, as I had expected he would, to the position in France. He said that the 40-hour week bill had been carried there, and he specifically quoted the case of the mining industry. Unfortunately I am unable to follow him on the question of the mining industry, because that does not happen to be one of the subjects on which I am well-informed, but I would say, subject to correction, that only a very small percentage of the coal produced in France is for export. Surely that is one of the things that makes a vital difference. Secondly, I would observe that, although that measure has been carried through in France, too short a time has elapsed for it to be seen how it will work. The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and in

three or four years' time we shall be able to say whether that measure has failed or has been successful. Frankly, I am sceptical as to what the results will be. M. Blum, no doubt, thought he was well advised in bringing forward that bill, but personally I am apprehensive of its results, and I do not think many hon. Members would at the present moment care to say with any certainty what reactions it may have on M. Blum himself. Surely it is on the question of the costs of production that the whole matter turns. It is not possible to reduce hours of labour in this country—I am confining my remarks at the moment to the export industries—without putting up the costs of production, and if costs of production are increased, I cannot see how the reduction of hours will react to the advantage of the workers. Unfortunately—or fortunately—we in this country have been, and still are, dependent to a very large extent on the prosperity of our export industries. If costs of production in those industries are increased, they will lose their position in the neutral markets of the world.
I would like now to turn to another point which is rather wrapped up with this matter, and that is the question of the increased mechanisation which is taking place, with its reactions on employment and unemployment. I readily accept the proposition that in any particular industry or firm, and for a certain period, the introduction of labour-saving machinery will react to the detriment of the workers because people will be turned off; but having admitted that, I cannot accept, and I repudiate, the statement that the introduction of labour-saving machinery over a period of years and over the whole field of British industry is anything but a friend and ally of the workers of this country. Suppose, however, one accepts the validity of the argument that labour-saving machinery turns people out of employment—then, if hours of work are reduced, with a consequent increase in costs of production, one of the first things that the management of a firm or the industry will do is to try to introduce, if possible, labour-saving machinery which will offset the increased costs brought about by shortening hours. Therefore, on that assumption, new labour-saving machinery will turn more people out of work.
In dealing with the question of increased costs, I would like with very great sincerity to put to the hon. Members who moved and seconded the Motion the question as to what they would do if they were the managing directors of a company or group of companies and the Government came down on them and said, "Your workers are now working so many hours a week, and Parliament enacts that they shall not work more than 40 hours a week." It would be necessary for the hon. Members, as managing directors, to look for new ways in which to make economies. Perhaps they could make economies and perhaps they could not. If they could not, inevitably they would have to turn people out of work. That would be inevitable, whether they were working under a capitalist system of managing directors and boards of directors, or under a Socialist State as chairmen of management committees appointed by the Government.
To my mind there is only one way in which hours of work could be shortened without there being the prospect of a substantial increase in costs of production, and that would be by getting an international agreement. Although that was referred to by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, there is nothing in the Motion about international agreements. Surely it is a very vital part of the problem that we should get an international agreement. It is here that I feel I differ from hon. Gentlemen opposite. They know very well that at the International Labour Conference last year, when the Draft Convention was under discussion, there were very great difficulties in the way of coming to a satisfactory agreement on the matter. Italy, which had attracted a great deal of the kudos in taking the initiative so far as the Convention was concerned, unfortunately, when it came to the question of inserting words that would satisfactorily ensure that the standard of living and the maintenance of wages was constant, refused to come in with us. That is a very vital point. It is true that in the actual wording the question was based upon the maintenance of the standard of living, but there was a great deal of difference between the maintenance of the standard of living and the maintenance of weekly wage rates. I regard it as essential that all countries

should come in, should signify their willingness to join in the plan of reducing hours, and should definitely and explicitly state that where hours are reduced, wage rates will be maintained. Unfortunately, we have not got that. Therefore, if we were to adopt that proposal and maintain wage rates, and it was not done by other countries, surely hon. Members opposite realise the very great disadvantage at which it would put the export trades of this country.
There is one further point on which I would like to touch: it is a point which has already been touched upon by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion. Although I agree that there are occasions when it is desirable, and perhaps essential, that the Government should step in and regulate the conditions of work, the hours of work and wage rates —while I recognise that that has been done in the past and that there may be occasions when it will be desirable that it should be done in the future—I cannot agree that it is desirable for Parliament to prescribe for industry as a whole the hours of work and the wages that are to be paid. That, if I may say so, is the very negation of liberty and an interference with industry which is quite unwarranted. There is adequate machinery in this country for dealing with these questions. But, hon. Members opposite may say, even if such machinery exists, would it not be better for the Government to come in? My answer is, "No!" I think it is better for the representatives of the employers and of the employés—the trade unions—to come together in the first instance to discuss these questions and to conduct free negotiations in reference to an industry all the facts of which they have at their finger-tips. Should that means fail, then surely it would be time for the Government to come in. If, as the hon. Member for Leigh suggested there was the threat of a strike, for instance, then a case could be made out for Government intervention. But surely the first effort should be to deal with these matters by negotiation between the trade unions and the representatives of the employers.
Of one thing I am certain. If in any industry—and that applies particularly to sheltered industries working for the home market—a reasonable case can be


made out for shortening hours, and if the shortening of hours is not going to place an undue burden upon the industry concerned, the day will come when that industry will get the shorter hours through free negotiation and with the support of enlightened public opinion in this country. But for Parliament to enact that, over the whole field of industry, the maximum number of hours is to be 40 or some other arbitrary figure, irrespective of different conditions in different industries, would be unwise and would aggravate the very problem which hon. Members on both sides are equally anxious to solve, namely, the problem of unemployment.
I am certain that in the next five or ten years we shall see a reduction of hours and I believe that reduction will come about in the manner which I have indicated. Such a reduction of hours is bound to come first in the sheltered trades. I do not believe it will come in the unsheltered trades until we have a satisfactory international agreement. While I sympathise with 90 per cent. of what has been said by the Mover and Seconder of this Motion, yet I feel that if it were carried and brought into effect it would create a serious position in this country and that if we were to embark upon such a course as is here suggested, by ourselves without any international agreement, the result would only be to aggravate the unemployment problem.

5.4 p.m.

Squadron-Leader WRIGHT: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do so with some diffidence, because this is the first occasion on which I have had the honour of addressing the House. The subject of this Motion is one in which I have been intensely interested for some time, and although I intend to oppose strongly the Motion so ably put forward by the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald), I should like it to be clearly understood that I am, for reasons which I shall presently give, a very firm believer in the necessity of doing everything possible to shorten hours of labour. I find myself, however, differing fundamentally from the hon. Member for Ince in my outlook on this subject. He believes that if we shortened hours of work by compulsory legislation, we would be able to spread the work and create more employment. I hope to

show that it is not likely that such would be the case. I, on my side, regard the shortening of hours of work, by co-operation between employers and employed, as a wholly desirable factor in improving industrial conditions, and I think there is a very obvious reason for believing that it can be done. As we all know, there are few people doing jobs of work to-day who could not do that work with equal efficiency and in less time if they realised that the time thus saved would be their own. I, therefore, would regard shorter working hours as a reward for increased efficiency.
What are the problems with which we find ourselves confronted when we try to deal with this question of shorter working hours? Immediately we are faced with two alternatives. One is to reduce working hours, say, from 47 or 48 to 40 and to pay only for the 40 hours worked. I think we are all agreed that that is a policy to which no British Government would agree. It would be an entirely ridiculous policy, because it would mean that by legislation we were actually reducing the spending power of our people. Since our prosperity depends on maintaining and wherever possible increasing the spending power of the people, such a policy would not only fail to provide more employment but would very shortly create more unemployment.
So we turn from that alternative to the other. The other alternative is to make a reduction in hours but to continue to pay the wages now paid for the larger number of hours. At first sight it might seem that by doing so, we were at least maintaining the spending power of the people, but obviously what we would really be doing would be increasing the country's wages bill by about 20 per cent. One does not require to be a great student of business economy to realise that that would be followed immediately by a corresponding increase in the cost of living. So although the worker would go home each week with the same amount of money in his pocket as if he had worked the longer hours, yet he would find that his spending power had been reduced owing to the increased cost of living. Therefore I feel that any attempt to deal with this matter by any form of compulsory legislation would meet with disaster.
I would recall to the House a speech made by the Prime Minister at Bristol in October, 1934. He was then dealing with the Government's outlook on this question and he summed up the situation very concisely. He pointed out the undesirability of attempting to deal with this question by legislation, and he went on to say that the Government would welcome and encourage any efforts by individual firms or by industries to attain by means of co-operation between employers and employés the very desirable result of shorter hours. I have not the slightest doubt that it can be done, but it can only be done by securing increased efficiency in the shortest time, and, this in turn can only be achieved by genuine co-operation between employers and employés. My reason for saying so is this. I think it will be agreed that every day there is an appalling waste of time and a considerable waste of material in industry throughout the country. I maintain that if we could retrieve only a reasonable percentage of that waste, it would be possible to find all the money that is required to introduce these very desirable improvements. Unfortunately, the only people who can effect that saving are the people who to-day are creating the waste, that is the workers themselves, and in very few cases is there any incentive for them to change their methods and try to retrieve that waste.
I am convinced that if employers and employés would only get together and look at these things in the right light, much could be done. As soon as the employés were absolutely satisfied that the increased productivity, the increased profits, which would arise from retrieving that waste, would come to them, to help in creating these improvements, I believe we could start at once to find the money which is necessary to introduce such a sweeping change as the shortening of working hours. I have said that shorter working hours should be the reward of increased efficiency. When we get increased efficiency it will help to maintain a satisfactory ratio between the cost of living and the spending power of the people, and it is essential that we should maintain a satisfactory ratio in that respect if we are to maintain and increase the prosperity of the general mass

of the people. This result, as I say, can be obtained by genuine co-operation.
I venture to give the House two examples of what I happen to know is going on in industry at present. In one case a firm is proceeding quite successfully and entirely as the result of genuine co-operation, to work 45 hours while continuing to pay the wages which were formerly paid for 48 hours, with no increased cost of production. The second case is rather different and illustrates a system which, if it could be worked generally, would be ideal, though obviously it would not be possible to apply it everywhere. This is the case of a firm which for two or three years has been getting 80 hours a week out of its plant by working two shifts of 40 hours each, and has been paying 48 hours wages for 40 hours work. Of course the employés concerned have to work at unusual hours, because the plant starts at 6 o'clock in the morning and runs continuously until 10 o'clock at night. They are very content to do that, because not only are they getting 48 hours' pay for 40 hours' work, but every week-end they get a clear holiday of 2½ days, and that is very much appreciated.
But what of the firm? First of all, they are employing twice as many people as they would otherwise be doing. Secondly, they are finding that they can absorb the whole of that 20 per cent. increase in wages, and they are actually able to sell the commodities which they make at a lower price than they would be able to sell them at if they were working 48 hours as under the old system. That is very interesting, because it shows what can be done by genuine co-operation. I am convinced that it can only be done by what I call co-operation, because it is necessary to get increased effort, and if you do not have that increased effort—and you do not get it simply by legislation which says that you must work shorter hours—you are immediately going to get a rise in the cost of production, which will reflect itself in decreased selling power and will put up the cost of living. It is for that reason that I strongly oppose this Motion and have pleasure in seconding the Amendment.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. MANDER: I am sure the House would like me at once to congratulate


most warmly the hon. and gallant Member for Erdington (Squadron-Leader Wright), who has just been speaking for the first time, on the effective manner in which he has performed that difficult and trying task. He has dealt with a subject of which he has intimate personal knowledge in an interesting and thorough way, and I am sure we shall all look forward to future contributions from him on matters which he knows a great deal about. I intend, in a minute or two, to make some reference to the very important points that he has raised, but I would like, first of all, to say something about this problem from its international point of view.
I rise to support the original Motion. It seems to me that there is very genuine ground for criticism of the Government in regard to the attitude which they have taken up at Geneva for a number of years past—long before my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour went there —with regard to the discussions on the Convention for a limitation of hours to 40 per week. It seems to me that their attitude has been unsympathetic, obstructive, and negative, and that they have given encouragement thereby to a certain section of employers who have all along taken, I think, a very shortsighted view of these negotiations. I am very sorry to notice that some of the employers have even gone so far, on occasion, at Geneva, as to go on strike and refuse to take any part whatsoever in the negotiations. I think that is an unworthy attitude to take up. Whether one agrees with the scheme or not, one ought to do one's best for it, but I am afraid that they have been encouraged in that course by the attitude which the Government themselves have adopted.
The Government have taken advantage, it seems to me, of the conflict of opinion which certainly exists in this country and all over the world between the two principles of wage maintenance and work sharing. We hold to the first, but other countries do not. There is scope there for difference of opinion, and I think the Government have taken advantage of it. There are immense difficulties in this problem, and it will be extremely difficult to arrive at a satisfactory arrangement, but some day it will be arrived at. It is essential that in due course there should be an international limitation of hours, and I should have thought it

would have been far better to have got down to the details of these problems and worked constructively with other nations in trying to find out where the difficulties hitherto have been.

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Mr. Ernest Brown): Hear, hear. We have.

Mr. MANDER: It does not seem to me that their record, which I shall refer to in a little more detail, exactly bears out the cheers that have just come from the Treasury Bench. I hope it is an announcement of their intention to do better in future. These negotiations first started in June, 1933, when the Seventeenth International Labour Office Conference took place, and the principle of the 40-hour week was opposed by most of the employers. The opposition was led by the British Government, in association with the Japanese and German Governments. In 1934 the British Government again opposed it, though on different grounds. They then said it was a matter which was too complicated and that it ought to be dealt with industry by industry. That may be so, and an attempt was made by the International Labour Office to meet their point of view. Their ideas were adopted, and, as is known, there was a general resolution, followed by the possibility of dealing with different industries industry by industry in the Schedule. In 1935 a draft Convention was actually adopted, by 75 votes to 27, on the 40-hour week, the British Government abstaining.
That Convention had three main points. First of all, it adopted the principle of the 40-hour week as being a desirable objective—not as one to be put into force at once everywhere, but merely as a desirable objective. Secondly, it adopted the principle that there should be maintenance of the standard of living, a very different thing from maintenance of wage rates. It is very much more important, because if you maintain wage rates, the cost of living may go up, and the actual earnings of the workers will be very much less. It is a greater advantage to the workers, therefore, to maintain the standard of living. This was a more elastic definition that that adopted before. A reduction of the standard of living was not forbidden, but it was definitely deprecated. The third point was that these different industries should be taken one by one and discussed in detail.
As I say, the British Government abstained, but a large number of Governments voted for it, and very powerful Governments too—the Governments of the United States of America, Belgium, France, Italy, and a number of others. I think it may be said that the result of this draft Convention was to hold up 40 instead of 48 hours as being the desirable goal. In the Washington Convention the figure was 48, and it shows a great advance. Although we are still a very long way off getting the 40-hour week, that is what we are striving for now, and not the 48-hour week which formerly lay in front of us. It is admitted that it is not simply an emergency proposal to deal with unemployment, but that it is the workers' legitimate share of the advantages that are brought to industry through modern technique.
Now I want to deal with the speech made by the Minister of Labour this year, when, I was very glad to see, he went out himself and took part in the proceedings. It is very desirable that Ministers, if they can spare the time, should go personally and take part in these discussions. The right hon. Gentleman said that the British Government did not intend to ratify the Convention and that it was a menace to the British workers. He said, very truly, that British workers were opposed to any wage reduction with a reduction of hours. He then went on to assume, what really is not accurate, I think, that there necessarily would be a reduction of wages. That does not follow at all. I will quote his actual words. He said:
The organisation, by attempting to isolate the question of hours of work from wages and other vital considerations, can snake no real progress in improving world conditions.
My right hon. Friend knows very well that these things are often dealt with, both nationally and internationally. He went on to refer to the fact that it was far better that the wages should be dealt with freely by negotiation between the two parties concerned, and no doubt that is true, but it negatived what he had said before, the inference from which was that if they had a Convention dealing both with hours and wages, he would be impressed and would be prepared to co-operate. I think that makes it clear that the Government are not really very anxious to take a very active

part in bringing about a Convention. On the same occasion Miss Miller, the representative of the American Ministry of Labour, took a quite different point of view and said that the American Government were in favour of the Convention as it stood. A very good answer was given to our Minister of Labour by Mr. Edelman, the United States workers' representative, who said:
Labour is for, and believes it can enforce, with perhaps a very slight time lag, the principle of maintaining present or higher wages when hours reductions are effected…There is no more certain way of creating a situation where wages must rise than by reducing the hours of work in the week.
That was the position of an American representative, There were several meetings this year of committees set up to deal with the question industry by industry, and here again I would venture to criticise the action of the Government and to ask them if they will be good enough to explain what was the reason for adopting such an attitude. There were several committees appointed, but the British Government sought to be represented on only one of them, that dealing with iron and steel. There was another very important committee, dealing with coal mines, but the Government were not represented on it, although three times the Miners Federation asked them to be represented, and there was on the spot in Geneva a responsible official of the Mines Department who could have gone there and represented the British Government. Why was it not done? There must be some explanation, and I have no doubt the Government will be able to give it; but it does not seem very encouraging. The question of the reduction of hours in mines is one of immense importance to this country, and we ought to do all we can to tackle it. A coalowner was speaking to me only a day or two ago in reference to hours in mines, and he said that he thought, in view of the intensification of machinery in mines, that a four-hour day was enough for the miner to handle the machinery. We are too much inclined to think of the old times when it was just a long day of heavy labour, whereas to-day it is a short day of highly intensified work.
My hon. Friend who introduced this Motion referred to what was going on in France. It is a long way from being


complete, but the Act has been passed, and he asked why we cannot have it here. One answer is that the progressively-minded people in France have had the good sense to unite in a popular front, and they have put in power a Government that adopts legislation of this kind. Until progressive people in this country—and I include many Conservatives—do the same thing, we shall have to put up with the galaxy of talent we now see on the Front Bench. It is not only in France where progress is being made towards a 40-hour week in practice. It is being done in Belgium and New Zealand, and in many instances in Russia. I am afraid that the 40-hour week has riot made very rapid developments in this country, but I believe, as my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Erdington said, that there is a great opportunity in industry in England to bring it into operation without any reduction in pay—that is, where rationalisation is taking place. Whether we like it or riot, it is taking place in many industries.
I would appeal to the Government, to employers and to trade unions, to bear this matter very closely in mind when rationalisation is taking place and in the negotiations that follow it, and to see whether, as part of the deal, they cannot come to an arrangement for a reduction of the working hours to 40. In cases of this kind it means that the workers are asked to accept methods which are perhaps totally different from anything to which they have been accustomed in the past, and it is not easy for them to make the mental change. If it is coupled up, as it might well be, with a reduction in the working week, you will get an agreement acceptable to both sides. I earnestly beg the Government to use all their influence with employers and to point out the opportunities which undoubtedly exist.
If I may be permitted to refer to my own experience in this matter, I have found it possible to reduce the working week concurrently with rationalisation from 47 to 40 hours, that is, a five day week of eight hours each. In this particular case—and I do not say it can be repeated—there has been no reduction in pay, but actually an increase of about 25 per cent. There have been no discharges and the costs of production have

gone down. The House may be interested to have some personal experience in this matter, because I am convinced that, while exactly the same results cannot be repeated in other cases, there is a large field in industry where progress could be made if the three parties concerned—the employers and workpeople, with the encouragement of the Government—make their most earnest endeavours to do so.

Mr. AUSTIN HOPKINSON: May I ask what proportion wage costs bear to the total costs of production in the hon. Gentleman's own industry, because that is an important consideration?

Mr. MANDER: I fully appreciate that point arid I should not like to say offhand what it is, but it is a small one, and that is why I say it could not be repeated. There is no reason, however, why something on that line should not be done. The reduction in hours has meant to the workpeople a clear two days' holiday, and increased opportunity to attend to their hobbies, and more time spent in the open air in the cultivation of allotments. During the summer months it gives opportunities to those who have motor bicycles and sidecars to go away to the seaside on Friday evening and come back on Sunday, which was never possible before. It enables them to follow the away matches of their favourite football team, which cannot be done by workers who have to work on Saturday morning. To the women it has given opportunities for shopping at hours when the shops are not so full as they are on Saturday afternoon. The Foreign Secretary said the other day that the British Government are going to give a lead. I hope that the Minister of Labour, whatever may have happened in the past, is going to give a lead in this matter. I know that the path is a difficult one, but it has got to he covered some time, and the sooner it is covered the better. If the British Government would show that they are in earnest and determined to make progress, the path would be traversed at a much earlier date than would otherwise be the case.

5.37 p.m.

Mr. HOPKINSON: What always puzzles me when I listen to the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander) is how he manages to reconcile


his Liberalism with the speeches he makes on such subjects as this for they are certainly not Liberalism. That he should in his own industry be taking the step of reducing hours is in accordance with Liberal principles, but that he should come to this House and advocate the interference of the State in the matter may be becoming for a Tory, and certainly becoming for a Socialist, but it is not becoming for a Liberal.

Mr. MANDER: The hon. Gentleman is very much out of date in his view of Liberalism. He is thinking of the Liberalism of 50 years ago.

Mr. HOPKINSON: Having been born a Liberal and remained a Liberal all my life, I have some regard to the principles of Liberalism. I am proud that my native Lancashire should have produced the Proposer and Seconder of this Motion. I have been sorry to note that the prize for popularity, and, I might even say, affection felt on this side of the House for hon. Members opposite, seemed likely to be snatched from Lancashire by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Grenfell) and the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson), and I am glad to see that Lancashire has regained first place in the affections of this side of the House. I venture to intervene because I have had unusual experience of this matter of shorter hours. When I served my apprenticeship in the late 19th century, I was apprenticed to the firm of Mather and Platt, which was the first firm in the engineering trade to adopt the 48-hour week. The hon. Member for Bury (Mr. Chorlton), I may mention, happened to be works manager when I was an apprentice. The whole scheme was taken up with the greatest enthusiasm by the men employed. It meant doing away with the hour worked before breakfast, which the heads of the firm had always thought a mistake and a great waste of labour and time. When the 48-hour week was introduced the efficiency of labour in those works became enormously higher than in other works I remember when starting work in the morning that one had a hammer in one hand and a chisel in the other, and as soon as the electric bell went the hammer descended on the chisel—a thing unknown in shops working 56 hours. But I fear that it did not last.

After my apprenticeship, I took the risk of setting up for myself, and I started my own place on a 48-hour week. Subsequently, when the engineering trade hours were reduced 15 years ago to 47 I brought mine down to 44. As far as I can see at the moment in the engineering trade, I have got down to hours as low as possible without reducing the standard of living of the workers. I do not say that circumstances may not alter and that it may not be possible to take further steps in future, but for the present, my opinion, based upon actual experience over a considerable time, is that I do not think I could reduce the hours further without it having some effect on the standard of living of the workers.
Do not let us deceive ourselves about one point. Do not let it be imagined that because hours are reduced there is an immense wave of enthusiasm among the workers. I am afraid that, even in my own works, many of those dear old customs of the trade which were invented by ingenious people in the past for reducing the amount of work performed in a given time, still prevail in spite of the fact that every man in the works knows that if he increases production the whole product of his labour goes back into the pockets of himself and his fellows. So do not let us think that human nature has changed because of the hours of work, for it has not. The point of view of those who moved this Motion is that these things are best done by statutory enactment. Our point of view on this side is that they are better done by trade union agreement. I feel strongly—and other Members on this side of the House and employers of labour feel—that one of the greatest disasters that has overtaken industry in this country was the attempt made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George), which had a large degree of success, to destroy the whole trade union system by taking away from the unions their proper functions and putting them into the hands of the State. "If you trust your trade union," said he, "you get only 4d. for 4d., but if you give your vote for the politician, you get 9d. for 4d." If we had a Statute introduced definitely reducing hours in the way suggested by hon. Members opposite, we would not, until it had been working for a year or


two, have any conception of what its effect would be on the prosperity of the workers themselves.
But trade union leaders are more closely in touch with their own people and they can make a shrewd guess as to whether their own supporters are really in favour of any particular demand which they put forward. If they put forward demands which the industry in question cannot grant, it is almost certain that they will be defeated, whereas, if they put forward demands which the employers say the industry will not stand when, in reality, the industry will stand them, my experience is that almost inevitably the trade union will get a substantial part of the demand that they put forward. In those cases no irreparable injury is done to the industry. There is a flexibility, or there used to be, rather, about those things which statutory authority entirely does away with, rendering any mistake a difficult thing to correct subsequently.
I put that point briefly to hon. Members opposite and ask them to consider whether, in this particular instance, it would not really be a mistake to have a hard-and-fast statutory rule about the hours of work. Would it not really be better to see whether, after all, employers of labour have not got a little bit more civilised in recent days than they used to be before the War? When all is said and done, as I think hon. Members will, in their hearts, agree, the happiness of the workers depends ultimately not upon Statutes and not upon Government action but upon the civilising of employers of labour.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. LESLIE: The Mover of the Amendment said he did not believe that it would be to the advantage of the workers if this Motion were carried. We on this side, members of trade unions, are always prepared to take risks and we will certainly take the risk of seeking to reduce working hours. The Mover of the Amendment said that he was somewhat sceptical as to how this proposal would work in France, but at any rate the French Government are bold enough to take the risk, and we only wish the British Government would be equally bold. The Mover also said there was adequate machinery in this country to deal with questions of this kind. I am afraid that I cannot agree. There is no adequate

machinery for dealing with the domestic problem of shop life; otherwise, assistants would not be working 60 to 70 hours a week as they are to-day. Whatever may be said about the League of Nations on its political side, no one can say that it, has failed on its industrial side. People are apt to think of the League only in connection with its failures and to overlook its successes. Fortunately, both the United States and Japan are in the League on its industrial side, although, unfortunately, not on its political side.
I would remind hon. Members that Robert Owen, the great co-operative pioneer, must be given the credit for initiating the idea of an international labour organisation to deal with such questions as working hours. More than 100 years ago he presented a petition for the international regulation of working hours. That petition was turned down, but the fruits of that effort were secured following the Great War. Robert Owen understood perfectly well that it was only by international agreement that unfair conditions could be checked and friction between nations obviated. Here is a brief quotation from the report presented at Geneva this year by Mr. Butler, the chief director of the International Labour Office:
The predominant aim set before the International Labour Office by its constitution is the quest of social justice. Without social justice there can be no peace. War is not caused only or mainly by lust for territory or booty or prestige. It is also caused by low standards of living, by the feeling of economic insecurity, by the desire for moral or social emancipation. The roots are to be found in actual or threatened impoverishment, declining standards of life, insecurity for the future of themselves and their children which darkens the outlook of the present generation in so many countries.
The remedy is not to be found in political pacts or frontier rectifications or Disarmament Conferences alone. If for nothing else, the League deserves our whole-hearted support for what it has done for child labour, particularly in the East. I am glad to say that in India, Persia, Egypt, China and Japan the age of child labour has been raised and the working hours reduced; further, in Japan they now have holidays with pay. I hope the Government will take note of that. In this great work of raising the standard of life and reducing working hours I regret to say that the League has not


received the support either of the British Government or British employers that it deserves.
British employers constantly bemoan foreign competition and cry for tariffs to keep out foreign goods, but they have opposed every effort at Geneva for the international regulation of working hours. It is not merely a question of the 40-hour week. What was their 'attitude on the Washington Convention? I remember the arguments used at Geneva against the 48-hour week. M. Thomas, who was then chief director, had to take the British employers to task for their attitude there. I was on a, deputation which on one occasion went to the then Minister of Labour about the Washington Convention. He said that 95 per cent, of the workers in this country already enjoyed a 48-hour week and that therefore there was no necessity for interfering, but surely if 95 per cent. were enjoying a 48-hour week it would have been a simple matter to legislate for the remaining 5 per cent.? Last year, at Geneva, the majority of the employers, though not all, led by the British employers, refused to play the game. They refused even to enter into committee to discuss the pros and cons of the case, and for this they were severely taken to task by a number of Government representatives, among them representatives of the British Dominions and the United States. The criticism of the United States representative was the most scathing of all. He said that one would imagine, listening to the arguments, or, rather, the excuses, that God had wound up the clock at the beginning and had thrown away the key, and that, therefore, there was no necessity for any change.
I know the attitude which the British Government take up, but what has been the experience of the United States? Not only were wages increased, but hours were reduced, in certain industries to 35 a week and in others to 40 or 45, with the result that they were able to employ 5,000,000 of their unemployed. In Czechoslovakia 750 factories are working a 40-hour week and 1,500 factories less than a 40-hour week, with no reduction in wages. France during the past two years has abolished overtime in vital industries. Overtime is one of the greatest

curses of our present commercial system. On the one hand we find men and women and, according to the Factory Inspector's report, even boys and girls, working almost all the hours that God sends, while, on the other hand, men and women and boys and girls are walking the streets unable to obtain employment. In New Zealand they have a 40-hour week, and in Australia, not content with a 40-hour week, they are now going forward with a 30-hour week. Belgium has a 40-hour week in the Government programme, and it is the same in all the Scandinavian countries.
If all those countries are prepared to take the risk we cannot understand why the British Government is afraid to do so. At one time it was our proud boast that we led the world in social legislation, but that can no longer be said, but, thank heaven, the British Dominions are endeavouring to maintain British prestige in this respect. We have heard a good deal about prosperity, but there can be no prosperity when we have, on the Minister's own showing, 1,600,000 workers unemployed. Unfortunately, unless rumour be a lying jade, there is a considerable amount of overtime in the munition areas at the present time. I hope the Government will bear in mind the war-time experience. Overtime was then so prevalent in many munition factories, which were working seven days a week, that the sickness ratio grew to such an alarming extent that the medical fraternity had to intervene and approach the Government. When the United States entered the War the first thing they did was to introduce the 48-hour week in munition works. We contend that the scientific devices introduced to increase production ought not to be used merely as wage-saving' devices, but as labour-saving in the real sense, by a reduction in the working hours, so providing the workers with more leisure. We have it on the authority of no less a person than Sir Charles hander that a 40-hour week in this country would absorb at least 500,000 workers.
I wish to call the attention of the Government to a domestic occupation in which there is no question of international complications or foreign competition. In 1931 a Select Committee on Shop Assistants reported in favour of a 48-hour week, and a private Member's


Bill was introduced to give effect to the findings of that Committee, but the Government opposed it. In 1934 an Act was passed limiting the hours of young persons under 18 to 52 hours, and this year they will be restricted to 48. What has been the effect on the adult shop workers? Prior to that Measure for the young people, the only other legal limitation of shop assistants' hours was under an Act passed 49 years ago restricting the employment of young persons under 18 to 74 hours per week, inclusive of meal times. As a result of the Act of 1934 restricting the employment of young persons under 18 there has been an actual increase in the working hours of the adult assistants, because there is no legal limitation of their hours. They have to perform after the shop has been closed many tasks which formerly were done by the juniors. To-day hundreds of thousands of shop assistants are working 60 hours and more a week, while 250,000 distributive workers are walking the streets unable to find employment. We say that if the Government would do its duty and give effect to the findings of the Select Committee that would absorb to a considerable extent the 250,000 now out of work.
Long hours in the distributive trades are absolutely uncalled for. There is neither foreign competition nor international complications, and the public do not demand those hours. In the shops of the co-operative societies from one end of the country to the other a 48-hour 'week is worked, except in the North of England, where it is a 44-hour week. In the West End establishments of London, there is, by agreement with the union, a 48-hour week, but, as a matter of fact, the average time worked is 45½ hours. That covers 30,000 employés. Surely, seeing that that is possible in co-operative societies and in the best firms in this country, there can be no excuse if the Government do not give effect to the findings of the Select Committee, and thereby do something to deal with the unemployment problem. We believe that legal limitation to 48 hours would, to a considerable extent, absorb that 250,000, and I hope that the Government will bear the suggestion in mind.

6.1 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): I should like to join with the rest of the House in recognising the extremely fair and moderate tone of the Mover and Seconder of this Resolution. That tone was pretty well supplemented by the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment. I am sorry to have to disappoint the hon. Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) in appearing at the Box myself, and denying him the very real pleasure of hearing my chief; but I am sure he and everybody, on this afternoon above all afternoons, would be the last to wish to deprive him of a certain shortening of his hours of work, provided always, of course, that his earnings and standard of life remain the same.

Mr. EDE: Why does he take a busman's holiday?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Last year the Resolution on this subject, which was moved by the hon. Member for West Leyton (Mr. Sorensen) was specific in character. The weakness of it was that the specific portions of it contradicted each other, namely, adherence to the principles of the 40-hour week discussed at Geneva together with provision for the maintenance of earnings. This year, the Mover of the Resolution has given us a Motion very general in its terms. There is no doubt that, generally stated, the principle of the shortening of the hours of work is of very wide application indeed, and it is for that reason that it is necessary to remember the considerations that must be borne in mind in regard to its practical application, for only in such way can we view the problem in the proper perspective. The wording of the Amendment helps very considerably towards viewing the problem in proper perspective.
It is true that there are certain things which the shortening of hours of work may do, but it does not follow that shortening hours of work will necessarily do those things. In some cases shortening of hours of work will act to the contrary of what its advocates desire. The Motion states that one effect would be the reduction of unemployment; it states fairly that shortening of hours of work is only one method which will, perhaps, help towards a solution of that problem.


Speaking of that, the Mover of the Motion brought up that enormous question of mechanisation in its relation to unemployment. That is a problem which we have been discussing ad libitum ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution, and while it can be shown on certain grounds that mechanisation may lead to the lessening of employment in certain industries, there is the fact to be remembered that at the present moment, when mechanisation and laboursaving devices are at their peak—how further forward they will go I do not know—we have the greatest number of people employed in this country that has ever been known. I therefore do not want to follow in any detail the particular arguments on that question which, as we all know, would occupy a good many weeks if debated to the full.
Another point which the Mover of the Motion raised, and upon which he put a specific question, was as to the provision we were making to guard against an industrial slump which he said was undoubtedly coming. I am not prepared to admit that a slump is necessarily coming. Even if we consider, as indeed we must consider always, the possibility of a slump in industry, it is extremely difficult to visualise in any detail the nature of that slump, and it is impossible to endeavour to create some cast-iron safeguard against a slump the nature of which, when it occurs, one cannot forecast. With regard to the question of the effect of shortening hours of work in reducing unemployment, one has first to consider the thing from the point of view of the practical working of industry. Those with practical experience of industry know well that by simply shortening hours of work you cannot, for practical reasons, increase the number of persons employed in a strict arithmetical ratio. We are extremely indebted to the hon. and gallant Member for Erdington (Squadron-Leader Wright) for giving us such an extremely practical contribution, to this Debate founded, I have no doubt, largely on personal experience in his most successful maiden speech.
Another point concerns the sheltered industries. Nobody denies, in considering this problem, that there is necessarily a difference of point of view between the sheltered as compared with the unsheltered industries which feel the

blast of foreign competition. With regard to the cotton industry, for instance, some theoretical reduction of hours of labour, in accordance with the principle of this Motion, is not going to reduce the amount of unemployment in the cotton industry. The cotton industry's chief competitor, Japan, would probably do no such thing. That is, I think, one of the most forcible instance that can be given. The hon. Member for Ince naturally mentioned the question of the 40-hour week in coal mines in France. Without going any further into the subject, I think it is germane to indicate to the House the comparison of the French coal industry with our own. These are the 1935 figures, all in millions of metric tons: France, production 46.2; exports, including hunkers, 1.2; imports, 17.9. Great Britain, production 225.8; exports, including bunkers, 52; imports, nil. Those figures show the fundamental difference between the French coal industry and our own. Reports in the French Press state that since 1st June there has been an increase in the price of coal in France by 20 to 40 per cent., and some part of it is said to be attributable to the introduction of the 40-hour week. That sort of thing may perhaps be possible where most of the coal is sold inland, but there is an entirely different problem when you have to deal with an exporting industry.
I cannot pass by the remark made by the hon. Member for East Wolverhampton (Mr. Mander), who said that the intelligent people in France had solved their problem by forming a popular front.

Mr. MANDER: The progressive people.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Well, the progressive people in France are five years behind the progressive people of this country, because five years ago we formed a popular front, which at that time included the hon. Member and his friends. There is still a front and, judged by the last General Election, it is very popular. The French progressives had better hurry up.

Mr. EDE: The trouble is, you are not facing front now.

Lieut. - Colonel MUIRHEAD: The Motion regards reduction of hours as in itself constituting a reform, because, towards the end, it blames the Government for resisting a proposal for this reform. When we speak of a reform


we do not necessarily mean a desirable reform. Shortening of hours is not in itself necessarily a desirable reform. It is admitted, and it is good that it has been admitted, that if shortening of hours is accompanied by a decrease in the earnings of the workers of this country, that is not a desirable reform.

Mr. KELLY: Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman relate anything in this country during the last 30 or 40 years where reduction of the hours of labour has carried with it the reduction in the weekly wages?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I said that if reduction of earnings took place, that was not a reform, and I am certain that the hon. Member agrees with that statement. If that fact is established in view of what has gone on at Geneva and the representations on that point, this afternoon's Debate has done a very great service indeed. It is clear that anything in the direction of reduction of earnings would not be agreed to by the workers of this country.

Mr. KELLY: it would not be accepted.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: We have clarified two points, and one is grateful to the Mover of the Amendment for helping in that direction. Let us come to that point of the Motion which complains that the Government have resisted the proposal for this reform concerning shortening of hours of work. There, quite rightly, the hon. Member for Ince stressed the home front. He quite rightly put that first and said: "Let us talk about Geneva afterwards." Let me take what has happened in Geneva. I am the last person to want to disregard any official for his work in that connection, but I would remind the hon. Member that in the conference last June my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and, after him, myself, took a considerable part. I hope that that has dealt with the point. It is well known that in 1935 there was a convention on the principle of the 40-hour week, which we refused to support because we could not get any certainty that earnings would be safeguarded—instead there was merely a vague reference to "maintaining the standard of life." It was much too nebulous, having regard to the dif-

ferent standards of life throughout the world, for us to agree to.
It is a very serious thing. Do not let anybody doubt the seriousness with which we regard the putting of our signatures to documents involving international obligations to introduce legislation in this country. We cannot take any risks where a matter of that kind is concerned. This year, disagreeing with the convention in principle of last year, we were, of course, not prepared to agree to a convention putting a principle of which we disapproved into operation in the case of specific industries, but we did state clearly, and what happened at the end of the conference justified our view, that we would be prepared to co-operate in conversations or conferences between representatives of Governments, employers and workers in each industry, to examine the questions, not only of hours, but of wages and working conditions generally.
Let me take a typical instance, because it referred to a very big industry, the industry of iron and steel. The committee at Geneva put forward a draft convention on this subject, but the conference failed to give it the two-thirds majority which was necessary for its adoption. If we had been anxious that the whole matter of the regulation of hours by international agreement should drop, our easiest course would have been to do nothing more; but we did not wish it to drop. We were fully conscious of the immense ramifications of the industry, not only from the home point of view, but still more from the international point of view, and, therefore, we were determined that, if any agreements were subsequently to be arrived at to which we could put our signature, it should be done on a full basis of the facts and considerations covering the widest possible scope. Therefore, I myself—this was after the Minister had gone—moved the following resolution:
The Conference decides to request the Governing Body to consider the convening of a tripartite technical conference of Governments and of employers' and work-people's representatives in the iron and steel industry, with a view to reaching an understanding as to equitable standards based on adequate information concerning wages, hours and working conditions in the industry throughout the world.
That resolution was passed by 65 votes to 21, and to my mind it constituted a really practical contribution to the con-


sideration of a subject which otherwise, as far as the Conference was concerned, might possibly have died altogether. That seems to me to be another point in what I may call the basic practice by which the Government are actuated, namely, that whatever we do must be on the basis, not of a mere theory, not of a mere paper resolution, but on the basis of well considered data.
The hon. Member for Ince referred to the question of holidays with pay, and said that we are opposed to holidays with pay. That is not correct. It is perfectly true that we again prefer at this stage a recommendation rather than a convention, for, although holidays with pay may seem to many people to be a very simple thing, in point of fact, nowadays, there are many ramifications of this problem throughout industry as a whole, and we frankly prefer, as I have said, a recommendation to a convention. Therefore, as regards a convention, we did not oppose it, but we abstained; and abstention is something which is thoroughly well understood at Geneva as being for minor reasons rather than for reasons of first importance. It is perfectly well understood thus in the atmosphere of the International Labour Conference.

Mr. MANDER: Would the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell us why the Government were unable to attend the meetings of the Committee on Coal?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: We were not asked. We cannot be on every committee. It is well understood that the membership of committees is shared out. We cannot walk into a committee room and say, "We are going to be on this committee." The question of the arrangements as to who is to be on committees is in the hands of the management of the International Labour Conference.

Mr. SHINWELL: Was it not open to the Government to obtain admission to that committee; and is not the subject of coal mines important from the point of view of His Majesty's Government?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: One may say that there is not a single subject that comes up at Geneva which is not of interest to the British Government, with its world-wide responsibilities, but it is equally clear that we cannot be on all

the committees. Although, however, we had not a member on that Committee, we did, in view of our interest in the matter, have someone there to watch the proceedings.
I come now to the question of domestic problems. The hon. Member for Ince referred to the deputation to the Prime Minister on the subject of the hours of work of Government employés; and again he asked us to give him a frank reply. I will. It is that I can assure him that an answer to the points raised by that deputation has not by any means been overlooked. He may say he has been given the same old answer, that it has been considered. [An HON. ME-HER: "It was given six months ago."] I agree; it might have been longer. The Government do not assert that there is not scope for improvement in hours of work in every industry, but they are not going to be influenced by discussions and arguments such as are, I am afraid, all too common in connection with this problem—arguments of a generalised description and a very impracticable nature. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour, as I think the House is aware, has for a considerable time past been conducting discussings with representatives of various industries on this very point of the reduction of working hours, and the result, so far, of those discussions will be embodied in a White Paper which will be in the possession of the House next week.
I might perhaps refer particularly to the question of the distributive trades, to which my right hon. Friend has been giving particular attention. He has not been altogether satisfied with the rates of wages or the hours of work there, and next week, largely on his initiative, there will be discussions between representatives of various branches of that large occupation, to see whether more satisfactory regulation of rates of wages and hours of work cannot be agreed upon. The hon. Member for Ince asked why cannot the Government help to do something about shortening the hours of work? This is in fact a typical instance where, I suggest, the Government can help by initiating discussions which, if the trade were left entirely to itself, might not perhaps take place, or might not take place so soon. The powers of initiation of the


Government in this country are very considerable, and in this case my right hon. Friend has utilised them effectively. But it is only in accordance with British tradition and British practice that the members of that industry, as we may call it, or large group of occupations, should first of all themselves be given a chance of regulating rates of wages and hours of work on a satisfactory basis.
That is what I may call the third basic point of practice actuating the Government in this question—to try to maintain as far as possible the working of the highly successful machinery for collective agreement which we have built up in this country. The State is always ready, if the industry itself does not do enough to satisfy the public conscience, to intervene, but that is a very different thing from intervening in the first place. I am sure that the trade union movement in this country, with all that it stands for, does not want to be supplanted in every case at the first step by Government Departments. I have said that the State is always ready to intervene if enough is not being done to satisfy the public conscience, and that brings me to the point which the hon. Member raised with regard to Home Office responsibility. I will read him a couple of extracts from a speech by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, which have a bearing on the new Factories Bill which, as is well known, is in contemplation. Discussing the question of the factory inspector's report, he said:
I would like to say at once that at the Home Office we greatly deplore the excessive hours worked by women and young persons; but I must point out that it is true to say that in the great majority of cases the hours do not exceed 47 or 48 a week. We must not take the factory inspector's report as out of proportion, but must remember that his duty is to draw attention to difficulties, black spots, prosecutions, and anything that needs to be remedied. Hon. Members who have spoken to-day have paid a just tribute to the honesty, the complete impartiality and the frankness with which the factory inspectors discharge their duty. Therefore, we must not make the mistake of thinking that, because certain things feature in the report, they necessarily apply to the great majority of industries and workers.
A little later on he said:
I would only make this observation, that it is proposed to deal with the matter of hours in the Factory Bill which is to be

brought in next Session. I cannot go into details at this stage, but it is certain that there will be a very substantial reduction upon the present legal limit."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th July, 1936; cols. 1846–7, Vol. 315.]
That forecast is implemented in the King's Speech. The Government, through their inspectors, have frankly recognised the existence of certain unsatisfactory features and have indicated a determination to do their best to remedy them in the forthcoming Factories Bill.
I will give two other instances of steps that we are taking in connection with domestic problems. In the woollen textile industry the machinery of consultation has shown a certain weakness, and, therefore, at the instigation of my right Friend the Minister of Labour, there is at this moment a board of inquiry in that industry. With regard to road transport, a new and rapidly developing industry, the Government have been active in appointing a committee to inquire into the conditions, which are necessarily fluid and developing. The hon. Member for Ince, among his many requests to me for frank replies—I hope I have not disappointed him so far—asked me to state frankly the attitude of the Government towards the question of the shortening of hours.
I hope I have already indicated frankly that the attitude of the Government is not in any sense, as the Motion indicates, merely an attitude of blind resistance to the shortening of hours. Indeed, it is very much to the contrary. But I have tried in my remarks to lay emphasis on three principles which, I think, actuate Government policy, a determination to preserve the earnings of British workmen, a determination to maintain as far as possible the machinery for voluntary collective agreements and a determination that it will commit itself to nothing such as a binding international convention except on the solid basis of the data, facts, figures and considerations in their widest form relating to the particular industry involved. Those, I think, are three principles which are certainly present to our minds. I will quote two short extracts from my right hon. Friend's speech at the Geneva Conference this year:
It is in my judgment of little value to indulge only in a debating exercise of formulating a draft convention based on the convention adopted last year. I realise that


this would be a simpler immediate course, but I hope this Conference will go more deeply than that into the difficult questions involved in order that there may be real and not only paper results.
I suggest on behalf of the British Government that this Conference shall play its part and try to find a solution of its problems not alone on paper but also by the hard road of establishing and discussing the realities which stand in the way of fresh accomplishment in the field of social and industrial well-being.
That is the spirit in which the Government will continue to work at the problem.

6.32 p.m.

Mr. LAWSON: My hon. Friend deliberately drew his Motion wide in order to give an opportunity of testing the feeling of the House irrespective of party. Until the hon. and gallant Gentleman rose, the feeling in the House was fairly clear. We have heard from that side of the House well delivered, good old Tory speeches worthy of the early part of the 19th century. On this side we have heard the case put for the workers and for legislation. The issue is very clear, arid I think hon. Members opposite must have been very thankful when the hon. and gallant Gentleman had been speaking for some time because he at least succeeded in somewhat clouding the issue. I must congratulate him on growing in office. He really showed signs of growing skilled because, when he was put in a difficult position about the Mines Convention and the committee, he said, "Of course we had not a representative on that committee." Will he tell the House that, if the Government that represents one of the largest coal industries in the world had wanted a member on the committee, it would not have had one? If he will deny that I make this further statement, that if Great Britain had not a representative on the Committee it is because the British Government deliberately manœuvred not to have one, and to say that there was a gentleman with a watching brief, as though the United States representative had come over with a watching brief to the League of Nations is merely to exhibit that cleverness into which a Minister of Labour is sometimes legitimately drawn, but, when dealing with this important question, hardly fair to the miners and to the question at issue. He made another

point about the mines. He said it is true that they have reduced the hours in France, but they have increased the price of coal by 40 per cent. Has he heard that there has been an increase, and a very substantial increase, too, in this country.

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I read out the actual words.
part of which is considered to be attributable to the recent introduction of the 40-hour week in France.

Mr. LAWSON: That rather mitigates the effect, but has he not heard that there have been increases of wages given along with the reduction of hours and that, in fact, instead of the reduction in hours reducing wages, there is an increase of wages going side by side with the reduction?
My hon. Friends have made it clear that there are two things in their mind, first that the workers should gain some advantage from increased mechanisation and the advance of science, and, secondly, that on the ground of making some little contribution for the very terrible unemployment problem, there should be a reduction of hours. I understand that the Minister's own calculation at Geneva was that it would make something like a contribution of 10 per cent. With regard to obtaining some benefit from the increase in mechanisation and the advance in science, naturally the question of the miners would come to our minds. The reply of the other side was "Leave it to the good will of the employers. Where they can do it, they will, and in a large number of cases there have been reductions given voluntarily." But the industries that can look after themselves best are sometimes not the most heavily worked. It was bad enough to work underground when my friends and I were in the pit. I do not believe the people outside the mines appreciate what the country has owed to the terrific body, skin stripping work down in the pits. If historians knew more of what was done by miners towards the production of steel they would not be so eloquent about Napoleon going over the Alps and that kind of stuff. Bad as it was in our day, it is in some cases worse now. Members on all sides were staggered at the facts given by an hon. Member on this side in a case of disputed unemployment benefit. Working in a two-foot seam—in this case it was 20 inches


—with a machine driven by electrical power, the effect upon the nerves is simply terrific. The increase of science generally in the pits is making the pressure so great that nowadays only the very strongest men can do it.
One hon. Member in a very able maiden speech, with a coolness which I envied, used the old phrases, "Broadly speaking we agree," "All other things being equal"—just the kind of speech that used to be made by the coalowners who opposed the first reduction of hours in the last century. An hon. Member quoted the Prime Minister saying that the question of 40 hours was one for outside negotiation and collective agreement. As a matter of fact the Prime Minister made pretty well the same kind of speech when the eight hours question came up in 1908. He honestly thought that the legislative way was not the way. Yet who dares to say nowadays that the reduction of hours for boys from 10 to eight was a mistake? There is not a Member opposite who will say it. Who will say that there would have been a reduction of hours if this Assembly had not reduced them? Everyone knows that there would not have been any reduction. It is safe to say that if this House had not interfered in the mining industry, boys would still have been working 10 hours in the pits. After the War a Royal Commission unanimously decided upon a reduction of hours to seven, and after a trial probably to six. The Conservatives, who do not agree with interfering legislatively in the matter of hours, increased the miners hours by one. So apparently it is not a good thing to decrease hours, but it is a good thing to use your power to increase them. The speech of the Mover of the Amendment was well delivered but I should despair of this House and the country if I thought it represented Conservative views, because I have noticed the tendency on the part of the younger element to move with the times, but that speech left us where we were in the beginning of the nineteenth century.
Take the question of the Government's position. The Minister of Labour, it is true, went to Geneva and said:
The 40-hour week was launched with the idea of distributing available work and wages and reducing the number of wholly unemployed by a sharing of work. It was inevitable however that the question should

be considered not only from the point of view of those out of work but also from the point of view of those in work. It was natural that those in employment should see in the proposal a menace to their earnings, and this aspect of the question was very prominent in Great Britain.
Where? The only prominence that I know of in Great Britain is on Conservative platforms. The workers have asked for the 40 hours. They are legitimately entitled on experience to say, "Let the State do its duty." If this House decides upon a 40-hour week, it will become the law, and when it becomes the law we shall be able to look after ourselves. It is not from anywhere in working-class ranks that the fear of a reduction of wages has arisen. The House may take it that there will not be any reduction of wages as far as we are concerned. We certainly will not have that. There is no virtue in having your standard of life raised on the one hand, and then have us much taken away on the other. That is not the concern of the Government; it is our concern. I know that hon. Gentlemen opposite have a way of putting snares down so that gentlemen walk into them and all the rest of it. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman doubts what I say, let him examine the legislation upon this question for the whole of the last century or so.
There have been reductions of hours from time to time. There has been action taken by the State to safeguard, improve the position, decrease the hours, and generally improve the conditions of the workers. From some of the representatives of employers, and very often from abstract economists, there has come a threat that to work shorter hours would do more harm than good. I was working in the pit when the minimum wage row began for 4s. a day, with no clothes on, except shoes and stockings. I was a good craftsman, and, in fact, like most miners when they got into that condition, I did not think that there was anyone as good. I used to read the arguments used in this House, such as, "On the average the miner gets so much," and I wondered wherever those averages were to be found. They did not come my way. There used to be such phrases as "broadly speaking" and "in the long run," and one of the economists used to talk about the "long run results."
I remember an economist who, I believe, has become quite revolutionary since, saying "What is the good of this minimum wage? What will happen will be that the miners will go away from parts of the country to where they pay the best wages. If they pay better wages in Yorkshire they will come from Durham and Wales, and then there will be unemployment in Yorkshire and the miners will be worse off." That used to appear to me to be ridiculous, and I am sure that to the average worker the arguments which have been introduced to-night from the Government Benches will appear just as absurd, because they have no real connection with practical life.
The Government try to get out of this problem by saying that it is a wages problem. It is not a wages problem. If the Government do not intend to face up to the question of a reduction of hours, let them say so and not fall back upon some imaginary thing. The speeches of my hon. Friends were really very moderate. The Motion is not a revolutionary one, and the speeches that have been made were in very moderate tones. What are we up against. We are up against that fact that during the time when we have a tremendous boom, with more workers employed in Great Britain than ever before, we have 1,750,000 idle. Some men have been out of work for so long that it has been suggested that they should be taken off the register, and some of them are young men too. There are men under 40 who have been idle for five years. We have whole areas so sunk in this state of unemployment that there is a miasma of depondency prevailing in those places.
What are the Government going to do about it? It is here proposed—and it is a common-sense proposal—to give leisure to those who have not only had no advantage from the increase of scientific and mechanical inventions, but who have actually suffered because of increased pressure. Take the case of the men who drive the omnibuses. The strain of being continually on the street must be very great indeed. There is a whole range of industries which have gained nothing. Upon those grounds this proposal merits more consideration than it has received to-day. If the State does not deliberately undertake seriously to consider the giving of leisure to those who are working and

generally improving their position by bringing in those who are unemployed to help them by way of a reduction of hours, I do not know what is to happen. No wonder there is a great deal of pessimism upon what should give us increased enjoyment, namely, the increase of mechanisation.
I was talking to a great employer of labour at the beginning of this week, and he said that he thought life on the whole was better for the great mass of workers. There is a good deal to be said for that view. We do not hear so much of "rags and tatters" as formerly, but, on the other hand, there is a sense of insecurity which was not prevalent half a century ago. Years ago if we lost our jobs we could go somewhere else and get work, and if we did not get work in this country, we could get it in some other country. But all that is finished now. No one would he so stupid as to say that a reduction of hours would settle the unemployment problem. The approaches are many, and when they have all been named you have an uneasy feeling that there would be some other thing necessary. Here is one that is definite and one which the Government should consider.
The hon. Gentleman opposite has well represented the mind of the Government to-night, but I do not think that he has well represented the mind of some of the best brains behind it. There is disturbance on the benches opposite in regard to this matter, and there is certainly a disturbance outside. It is true, as the hon. Gentleman claimed, that the mind of the employer is not to-day quite what it was 25 years ago. He looks at things in a more enlightened way, and I believe that even the employer, with his sense of business ability, would require much more business ability from the Government than is evident at the present time. There is no hope as far as the Government are concerned. They are a nineteenth century government. They meet the requirements of some of the hon. Gentlemen who have spoken to-night, but it is certain that what is being refused proper consideration to-night will not only receive consideration in the future by the pressure of public opinion, but I venture to say, that the 40-hour week will be an old-fashioned suggestion by that time.

6.55 p.m.

Mr. W. A. ROBINSON: I have listened with great interest to the even tenor of this Debate upon the Motion of my hon. Friend the Member for Ince (Mr. G. Macdonald) and upon the Amendment. The Amendment, in my opinion, is an attempt to burke the clear issue of the Debate, because it
approves the action of His Majesty's Government in resisting proposals which would endanger the earnings of British workers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) is right in what he said. Speaking on behalf of the great Labour movement and of my people in St. Helens, the Minister and his colleagues may rest assured that we shall watch to see that wages are not reduced. At three o'clock to-morrow afternoon I am meeting a body of employers in London to discuss the institution of a 40-hour week in a certain industry. The peculiar circumstance is that this trade is making profits of £8,000,000 or £9,000,000 a year. So intense is the remarkable normal productivity of the machines used by these people that they are working a 40-hour week in many cases with a reduction of pay because the 40-hour week is not recognised. People are suffering because of the intensification of the new mechanism which we find in trade and commerce to-day.
I heard the noble speech of one of our friends on the opposite benches in which he spoke of his apprenticeship many years ago. I dare say that I am an older man than he; I remember the days to which he refers. There is always antagonism shown to workers organising and fighting for a reduction of hours of labour, but I am glad to state, as an old negotiator, that I find a distinct improvement in the minds of many employers in this country. I find an overwhelming desire to meet, if at all possible, the claim for a shorter working week. But let me get on to one very important question. I have recently been travelling through very highly mechanised factories in which the repetition work is not for one hour but for a week together, and in which girls and youths are at work, the machine doing the work on the belted principle of travel. So intense in some quarters has been the extent of nervous prostration that some of the girls on these processes, which are so mechanical and soulless, have had to be relieved for two or three

hours in order to prevent a complete breakdown of their nervous system.
The case of my friends the miners is being fought as it has been fought for years. There will be no contentment in the mines until a reduction of hours of labour takes place. Speeches made by hon. Members on this side must convince all thinking Members opposite that a case has been made out and is justifiable. Let us see what would happen. We are assured that it may be difficult in some industries to bring about a reduction in hours because of the possible high level of wage costs. That may be true and, if so, the matter would become one for negotiation and there would be, if not a 40-hour week at once, a reduction of hours on a graded scale.
I met a body of employers in London about eight days ago, and there can be no argument that on the facts and figures we presented and on their profits and turnovers they could have given us wholeheartedly as a great gesture the 40-hour week demanded for the women, girls and men employed in this great trade. What was the line of their argument? Facts and figures were completely against them. Their immense profits told against them. Their only reply was that there were people in the industry who were not possibly doing quite as well as they were and who would attempt to break down the organisation of the employers in the trade. Here is my trouble. I heard the hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Government to-night use these words. If I have not got them exactly no doubt he will correct me. He said that in regard to hours of labour there had been consultation with the Ministry of Labour and there would be a White Paper issued in which the story of these discussions will presumably be told to the House. This is what I want the Government to tell us. As a comparatively new Member of Parliament I am wondering whether the Ministry of Labour has been discussing something with the Confederation of British Employers, whose voice has become monotonously automatic in regard to any improvement in working hours. I hope that the White Paper will not reveal that there has been a half-blessing or any half-agreement with the Confederation of British Employers, because if the Minister and the confederation are recommending in the White Paper a halting, frightening policy it will


result in good employers who can afford to give a reduction of hours being scared by the Minister and the federation.
We realise, when we read the history of men like the Earl of Shaftesbury, that it was always unpopular to talk about reducing the hours of labour. An hon. Member said that when he was apprenticed 15 or 17 years ago they obtained the 47-hour week. They would never have got the 47-hour week in the ship-repairing trade but for the fact that the "Lusitania," much longer than 15 or 17 years ago, happened to be reconditioned in Liverpool and the men stopped work and the 47-hour week was won by the sheer might, right and determination of the men. Strikes and lockouts are objectionable in many ways. If they can be avoided by common sense and tactics they ought to be avoided. I heard several hon. Members say that they did not want Governmental interference in trade and commerce. The "Queen Mary" was built with Government interference. Beet and sugar are subsidised. These hon. Members say, "Give us all we want and we do not mind interference, but take nothing by interference." That is the policy of many employers and we resent it.
Hon. Members have talked about interference by the State in private trade and commerce. It is with regret I make this statement. I am not in favour of trade boards making conditions of labour for either young children, adult men or young women. It is a tragedy of this democracy that to compel rights for our people, to demand a decent standard of life, there has had to be trade board legislation in this country. You have been compelled to do it. You have had to step in and make employers do what common decency should have made them do. I hope that the House will reject the pettifogging Amendments. The hon. Gentleman who spoke for the Government said that the resisting of proposals which would endanger the earnings of British workers is one of their policies. I have never seen the National Government or the Tory party ever attempt to fight wage reductions. All that has ever been done is when a strike has compelled them to come in with conciliation methods. We fight wage reductions. I hope that the Amendment will get the sound drubbing which it deserves.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. HANNAH: I am very enthusiastic for this Resolution and all that has been said this afternoon. I agree with nearly everything that has been said on both sides of the House. If I support the Amendment it is because I feel that in that way we shall achieve the object of the Resolution better than by the Resolution itself. As a person who for long years has been lecturing for university extension work, for the Workers' Educational Association and things of that kind, I feel strongly the need of shorter hours and more leisure for the working classes. What we want more than anything else, from the social point of view, is to spread the bases of our culture so that a larger number of the population may have an interest in the best things our civilisation affords. In some respects I cannot help thinking that we are a little behind some other nations in this matter. There is the cherry blossom season of Japan, when the working classes of the great towns of that Empire come out in their thousands in the spring-time to enjoy the cherry blossoms and all that is meant by that. When I see in the great open air museums of the Scandinavian nations the way in which so large a number of people really feel an interest in the folk lore of the countryside and in the history and traditions of their own nations, I cannot help thinking that in some ways those lands are ahead of us. We do need more than anything else that our culture should spread throughout the whole population, and for that a shortening of the hours of work is extraordinarily valuable—indeed, absolutely necessary.
I was rather sorry in many ways to hear the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Lawson) take a line so antagonistic to this side of the House. I have a great respect for that part of the world, for some of my best recollections are of lecturing to miners in old university extension days some 30 years ago, when I gained a tremendous respect for those brave men and realised something of the conditions under which they have to work. Representing a purely industrial constituency and those who sent me to this House being almost entirely of the working classes, I regret more than anything a feeling of antagonism. I want to work with all who will work with me, and I feel that all


these problems will not be solved by internal quarrelling, class warfare and things of that kind, but by loyal co-operation between every part of our community. When the hon. Member speaks about the speeches on this side of the House representing the atmosphere of the early nineteenth century and later says that they were very moderate, I frankly do not know what he means. If those two remarks are not antagonistic I do not know how the same thing could be said in two different ways quite so queerly.
It is a mistake to say that we are enjoying a boom. We are not. Trade is improving gradually, rather slowly; but still, on the whole, things are getting distinctly better. But I cannot agree that we are in boom conditions, nor can we say that our industries are in a state of such tremendous prosperity that there has never been anything better in days gone by. When the hon. Member for Chester-le-Street talks about conditions being bad when he first went into the mines but worse now, does he really want us to go back 30 years or whatever it is in the conditions of industry in this country? I ask the question in all sincerity. Has all the work which has been done by all the political parties been such an awful failure as that? He spoke about security then, insecurity now. It is true that in those days the great plains of America were open and it was possible for workers who were discontented at home to find a new sphere in other lands. That that is not the position at the present time is no fault of the Government. But those days will come again. A large number of our workers who cannot very well be given good employment in this land will find new homes and opportunities and build new civilisations in other lands, sharing our Flag across the sea.

Mr. GALLACH ER: I hope you go with them.

Mr. HANNAH: I have spent many years abroad. It was a comparative accident that brought me back to this country. We have to make a good deal of distinction between sheltered and unsheltered industries, and I feel that in sheltered industries not subject to competition on any large scale there is great scope. I have had complaints of the very long hours worked in public institutions, sometimes running up to 60 or 70 a week.

That occurs in areas controlled by all political parties. We might make immediately a very real improvement there if the local bodies would see to it, in the local institutions under their control, that as far as possible the people had reasonable hours and reasonable conditions of service. There is no particular difficulty that I can see in bringing that about.
Now I come to a very difficult problem in the coal industry, in connection with foreign competition. There is no difference in any part of the House on one subject, and that is that when a law is made in this country it is rigidly enforced. Our system of inspection and our enforcement of the law is one of the strongest things about our civilisation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Question." I have not heard that questioned before. At any rate it is so in contrast with other countries. This is a rather difficult matter to talk about, because I am extremely unwilling to say anything that will reflect in any way on any foreign country. But let me tell a story of something that happened across the Channel. A cousin of mine was chaplain at an Anglican church at Mentone, and there were difficulties about the surrounding trees shading the windows of the church to such an extent as to be very inconvenient for the service. My cousin tried to put into operation the ordinary methods of getting the trees cut. There was a tremendous amount of red tape, but at a cost of something like 100 francs the trees were cut, though not very much. Next year when the problem came up again a Frenchman came to my cousin and said: "You leave this problem to me and I will manage it." My cousin was delighted to agree, and he was still more pleased to find that the trees were better cut than they had been before, and that the Frenchman told him that the cost would be two francs. "How on earth," asked my cousin, "did you get through all the red tape necessary for a sum like that?" "Oh," he replied, "a Frenchman knows what to do. I just tipped the gardener." That story has, I think, some bearing on the problem of competition between this country and others. I do not for a moment accuse any foreign country of bad faith or anything of that sort, but I do think that there is a very definite difference sometimes in the interpretation of regulations in this country and other countries.


We have had a definite challenge today and I take it up. Show us the way in which hours can be materially reduced and wages maintained and the company and industry can still continue to be prosperous, and we will enthusiastically accept it. We realise on this side of the House, and it is realised on the other side, that a decent and proper wage for the working class is the first charge on industry and not the last. Therefore, I appeal to the House to come together with enthusiasm and try as far as possible to shorten hours and to improve the conditions of our working classes, but I honestly believe that that can be done far more effectively in the words of the Amendment than in the words of the Resolution.

7.25 p.m.

Mr. ADAMSON: I am not going to take the hon. Member to where the cherry blossom grows or to end up by cutting down the trees. I realise from his lucid speech how much sympathy he has with the project of the shortening of hours of labour, but he began to build barriers that have to be climbed before that shortening can be accomplished. We are taking the logical line of bringing forward our main objectives and showing the advantages that will accrue from the shortening of the working week. As a fellow county Member in Staffordshire I am sure that my hon. Friend appreciates as I do the effect of the newer mechanised processes in the Midlands to- day.

Mr. HANNAH: Hear, hear.

Mr. ADAMSON: He realises the effect on the physical energy that has to be exercised in all the operations of our industrial life. The effect of this rationalisation, this intensified work, on the individual, is very considerable, and at the same time it has directly brought greater profits and advantages to the employers. In seeking the logical conclusion we ask that the worker should

be given the advantage of a reduction of hours as a recompense. This intensified work is having its effect on the immediate health of the worker and also on the ultimate period of life during which he can be an effective worker in his industry. That equally applies not only to those who are entering into industry for a lifetime but to the younger people and the female operatives who expect to be in industry only for a few years. It is also having its effects on the educational possibilities and leisure of those engaged in industry. It is because we believe that the things we advocate in our Resolution are desirable and necessary for the maintenance of a better civilisation that we seek to incorporate in our industrial life the application as a maximum of a 40-hour week.

It has been argued that it is not the best method of dealing with the problem by pressing for Government action, national and international, and that it should be left to voluntary negotiations between the organised industrial movement and the employers' associations. It may be suggested that that is the feasible course and that by dividing your energies you can conquer, but those who make that plea have very little understanding of the structure of the trade union movement, which not only specialises in industry but frequently specialises in occupations. To carry out negotiations in the way suggested would mean unlimited energies being exercised in that direction, and those negotiations would riot bring about the maximum of settlement. We believe that there is an obligation on the Government to bring forward legislation that would give the workers greater opportunities of leisure for educational development and for living a healthier and happier life, individually and collectively.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, 131; Noes, 215.

Division No. 2.]
AYES.
[7.29 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Barnes, A. J.
Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)


Acland, R. T. D. (Barnstaple)
Barr, J.
Buchanan, G.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Batey, J.
Burke, W. A.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Bellenger, F.
Cape, T.


Adamson, W. M.
Benson, G.
Charleton, H. C.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Bevan, A.
Chater, D.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Broad, F. A.
Cocks, F. S.


Banfield, J. W.
Brooke, W.
Cove, W. G.




Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Kirkwood, D.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Daggar, G.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Dalton, H.
Lathan, G.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Davles, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lawson, J. J.
Rothschild, J. A. de


Day, H.
Lee, F.
Rowson, G.


Dobbie, W.
Leonard, W.
Seely, Sir H. M.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
Leslie, J. R.
Sexton, T. M.


Ede, J. C.
Logan, D. G.
Shinwell, E.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelity)
Lunn, W.
Short, A.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
McEntee, v. La T.
Silverman, S. S.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
McGhee, H. G.
Simpson, F. B.


Foot, D. M.
MacLaren, A.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Frankel, D.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees. (K'ly)


Gallacher, W.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Sorensen, R. W.


Gardner, B. W.
Mander, G. le M.
Stephen, C.


Garro Jones, G. M.
Marshall, F.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Mathers, G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Maxton, J.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Messer, F.
Thorns, W.


Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Milner, Major J.
Thurtle, E.


Grenfell, D. R.
Montague, F.
Viant, S. P.


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Walkden, A. G.


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Walker, J.


Groves, T. E.
Naylor, T. E.
Watkins, F. C.


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Oliver, G. H.
Welsh, J. C.


Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Owen, Major G.
Westwood, J.


Hardle, G. D.
Parker, J.
White, H. Graham


Harris, Sir P. A.
Parkinson, J. A.
Whiteley, W.


Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Potts, J.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Jagger, J.
Price, M. P.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Pritt, D. N.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Jenkins, Sir w. (Neath)
Quibeil, D. J. K.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


John, W.
Richards, R. (Wrexham)



Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Ridley, G.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Kelly, W. T.
Riley, B.
Mr. G. Macdonald and Mr. Tinker.


Kirby, B. V.
Ritson, J





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Harbord, A.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P, G.
Craddock, Sir R. H.
Harvey, Sir G.


Albery, Sir I. J.
Craven-Ellis, W.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hellgers, Captain F. F. A.


Anderson, Sir A. Gariett (C. of Ldn.)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.


Apsley, Lord
Cross, R. H.
Holdsworth, H.


Assheton, R.
Crossley, A. C.
Holmes, J. S.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Crowder, J. F. E.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.


Atholl, Duchess of
Cruddas, Col. B.
Hopkinson, A.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Howitt, Dr. A. B.


Balfour, Capt. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
De Chair, S S.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Denman, Hon. R. D.
Hulbert, N. J.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Doland, G. F.
Hume, Sir G. H.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Hunter, T.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsnt'h)
Drewe, C.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Jackson, Sir H.


Boulton, W. W.
Duggan, H. J.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Duncan, J. A. L.
Joel, D. J. B.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Dunglass, Lord
Keeling, E. H.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Dunne, P. R. R.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Boyce, H. Leslie
Eastwood, J. F.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Kimball, L.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Ellis, Sir G.
Lamb, Sir J. Q.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Elliston, G. S.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Emery, J. F.
Latham, Sir P.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Entwistle, C. F.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Fleming, E. L.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Bull, B. B.
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Lees-Jones, J.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Goldie, N. B.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Carver, Major W. H.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Levy, T.


Cary, R. A.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Lewis, O.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Liddall, W. S.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
Liewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Channon, H.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Lloyd, G. W.


Chorlton, A. E. L.
Grimston, R. V.
Loftus, P. C.


Clarke, F. E.
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E (Drake)
Lumley, Capt. L. R.


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Clydesdale, Marcuess of
Guy, J. C. M.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hannah, I. C.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.







McKie, J. H.
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Spens, W. P.


Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Manninaham-Buller, Sir M.
Ramsden, Sir E.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)


Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon H. D. R.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton. (N'thw'h)


Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Remer, J. R.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Mills, Sir F. (Leyton, E.)
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.


Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Ropner, Colonel L.
Sutcllffe, H.


Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)
Tasker, Sir R. I.


Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Tate, Mavis C.


Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Rowlands, G.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.
Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Train, Sir J.


Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Salmon, Sir I.
Turton, R. H.


Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Clr'nc'st'r)
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Wakefield, W. W.


Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Savery, Servington
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Scott, Lord William
Ward, Lieut.-col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Nicolson, Hon. H. G.
Selley, H. R.
Warrender, Sir V.


O'Connor, Sir Terence J.
Shakespeare, G. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Orr-Ewinq, I. L.
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lt'st)
Windsor-Cllve, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Patrick, C. M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Peake, O.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Penny, Sir G.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Perkins, w. R. D.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)



Petherick, M.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Mr. Stuart Russell and Squadron.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Leader Wright.

Question put, "That the proposed words be there added."

The House divided: Ayes, 203; Noes, 124.

Division No. 3.]
AYES.
[7.38 p.m.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Hunter, T.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Cross, R. H.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.


Albery, Sir I. J.
Crossley, A. C.
Jackson, Sir H.


Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd)
Crowder, J. F. E.
James, Wing-Commander A. W.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Joel, D. J. B.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth)


Apsley, Lord
De Chair, S. S.
Keeling, E. H.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Doland, G. F.
Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)


Assheton, R.
Dower, Capt. A. V. G.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Drewe, C.
Lamb, Sir J. O.


Atholl, Duchess of
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Duggan, H. J.
Law, Sir A. J. (High Peak)


Balfour, Capt. H. H.(Isle of Thanet)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Leech, Dr. J. W.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Dunglass, Lord
Lees-Jones, J.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Dunne, P. R. R.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Eastwood, J. F.
Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Ellis, Sir G.
Levy, T.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Elliston, G. S.
Lewis, O.


Beit, Sir A. L.
Emery, J. F.
Liddall, W. S.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Entwistle, C. F.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col J. J.


Boulton, W. W.
Fleming, E. L.
Lloyd, G. W.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vanslttart
Fox, Sir G. W. G.
Loftus, P. C.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Lovat-Fraser, J. A.


Bowyer, Capt. Sir G. E. W.
Goldie, N. B.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Gridley, Sir A. B.
McKle, J. H.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Grimston, R. V.
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, w.)
Gritten, W. G. Howard
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Bull, B. B.
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Guinness, T. L. E. B.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Guy, J. C. M.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.


Carver, Major W. H.
Hannah, I. C.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Cary, R. A.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Harbord, A.
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Harvey, Sir G.
Morris, J. P. (Salford. N.)


Channon, H.
Hastam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinttead)
Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Clarke, F. E.
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'st'r)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan.
Muirhead, Lt-Col. A. J.


Clydesdale, Marquess of
Holdsworth, H.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. j.
Holmes, J. S.
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
O'Connor, Sir Terence J.


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Hopkinson, A.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Craven-Ellis, W.
Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hulbert, N. J.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.


Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Hume, Sir G. H.
Patrick, C. M.




Peake, O.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)
Tasker, Slr R. I.


Penny, Sir G.
Savery, Servlngton
Tate, Mavis C.


Perkins, W. R. D.
Scott, Lord William
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Petherick, M.
Selley, H. R.
Train, Sir J.


Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)
Turton, R. H.


Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Wakefield, W. W.


Pownall, Sir Assheton
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)


Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Warrender, Sir V.


Ramsden, Sir E.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Remer, J. R.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-CI. Rt. Hn. H. H.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Spens, W. P.
Withers, Sir J. J.


Ropner, Colonel L.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'nderry)
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'l'd)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)



Rowlands, G.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Russell, R. J. (Eddisbury)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Mr. Stuart Russell and Squndron-


Salmon, Sir I.
Sutcifffe, H.
Leader Wright.




NOES.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Grenfell, D. R.
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Potts, J.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Price, M. P.


Adamson, W. M.
Groves, T. E.
Pritt, D. N.


Anderson, F. (Whitehaen)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Quibell, D. J. K.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Banfield, J. W.
Hardle, G. D.
Ridley, G.


Barnes, A. J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Riley, B.


Barr, J.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Ritson, J


Batey, J.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Brom.)


Bellenger, F.
Jagger, J.
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Benson, G.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Bevan, A.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Broad, F. A.
John, W.
Rowson, G.


Brooke, W.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
Kelly, W. T.
Sexton, T. M.


Buchanan, G.
Kirby, B. V.
Shinwell, E.


Burke, W. A.
Kirkwood, D.
Short, A.


Cape, T.
Lathan, G.
Silverman, S. S.


Charieton, H. C.
Lawson, J. J.
Simpson, F. B.


Chater, D.
Lee, F.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Cocke, F. S.
Leonard, W.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees. (K'ly)


Cove, W. G.
Leslie, J. R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Logan, D. G.
Stephen, C.


Daggar, G.
Lunn, W.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
McEntee, V. La T.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Day, H.
McGhee, H. G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Dobble, W.
MacLaren, A.
Thorne, W.


Dunn, E. (Rother Valley)
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Vlant, S. P.


Ede, J. C.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Walkden, A. G.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Mander, G. le M.
Walker, J.


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
Marshall, F.
Watkins, F. C.


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mathers, G.
Welsh, J. C.


Foot, D. M.
Maxton, J.
Westwood, J.


Frankel, D.
Milner, Major J.
White, H. Graham


Gallacher, W.
Montague, F.
Whiteley, W.


Gardner, B. W.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
Wilkinson, Ellen


Garro Jones, G. M.
Naylor, T. E.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


George, Megan Llovd (Anglesey)
Oliver, G. H.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Owen, Major G.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Parker, J.



Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Parkinson, J. A.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES—




Mr. C. Macdonald and Mr. Tinker.

Main Question, as amended, proposed.

Several HON. MEMBERS: Several HON. MEMBERS rose—

It being after Half-past Seven o'Clock, the Debate stood adjourned.

UNEMPLOYED MARCHERS' PETITION.

7.47 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."

I wish to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the refusal to-day of the Prime Minister to grant any facilities for the unemployed hunger marchers to voice their grievances to him, to the Cabinet, or to the House. I am aware of the limits of this Debate. This is not a Debate in which it is possible or allowable for me to raise the whole question of the means test or the whole question of the depressed areas, and indeed my


purpose to-night is not to do that, but to ask that the people who come from the depressed areas should themselves be able to state their case to the Prime Minister, to the Cabinet, or to the House. To-day there has been a refusal. The Prime Minister has decided that he will not see the marchers, the Cabinet has refused to see them, and the Prime Minister has refused facilities for the discussion of their petitions. In my view, and in the view of my hon. Friends, that is not a wise action.
Let me consider for a moment who are the marchers. They represent the people of the distressed areas, they represent a very large body of people in this country, they represent those areas which have not shared in any increased prosperity. In particular, the people from South Wales represent the major part of one of the nations that form this Commonwealth of nations. I agree it is not technically a Dominion, but it is a separate nation, a nation that has made and will make a very great contribution to our national life. I think no one will dispute that the feeling which animates those who have marched is a feeling that is common to the people of South Wales, regardless of their political persuasion, their religious persuasion or their situation in life. They ask that the Government and this House should realise that they are seeing there almost the death of a nation. It is impossible to suggest that this march is simply a Communist manifestation. An extraordinarily representative body in South Wales is responsible for the march, and representative bodies in other parts of the country are also responsible.
Why have they marched? It is because they feel that their position is not realised by the people in the parts of the country that are comparatively better off. That is the feeling of the marchers from Scotland, from Cumberland, from Durham, from Lancashire, and from South Wales. They have passed peaceably through the country, trying to make people realise what is their position. I think everybody has been impressed by the other march—that of the people of Jarrow. That march certainly struck the attention of everybody in the places through which it passed. These people have come entirely peaceably. It is called a march, but there is nothing military

about it. It is not a threatening march; these people have come to present their grievances peaceably under the Constitution. They asked the Prime Minister to hear them, and when he would not hear them, they asked to be allowed to present their grievances before Parliament, the great assize of the nation.
There was a march in 1934, and the then Prime Minister gave his reasons for not seeing the marchers. There was a good deal of talk about Communism and so forth, but he stated that the Government at that time was engaged on legislation, that it was not indifferent to the problem, and that the matter could be raised on the floor of the House by elected representatives. I will recall what happened after the refusal of the then Prime Minister to hear the marchers in February, 1934. It is true that we had legislation. It is true that hon. Members on this side, and some hon. Members on the other side of the House, told the Government very distinctly what was wrong with that legislation, but unfortunately the Government did not listen to them. Words of wisdom are not always listened to in the House. What happened? Regulations were made, and within a few weeks of passing those Regulations, they had to be withdrawn. There had to be a temporary accommodation, which lasted month after month, because the Government had failed to gauge the effect of their legislation.
At that time the Government had the benefit of hon. Members telling them what would happen, but they would not listen. Are we to have the same thing happening again in the case of the new Regulations that were brought in? Let it be remembered that by the action of this House, by legislation introduced by the Government, the House was precluded from amending the Regulations. The Regulations had to go through in exactly the form in which they were prepared. Therefore, it is clear that, although hon. Members on this side, and hon. Members on the other side, pointed out what would be the effect of those Regulations, the Government, through that legislation, were precluded from accepting any Amendment.
The point has been made that to suggest that the Prime Minister should receive these men and women, or that this House should hear them, is to derogate from the dignity of Members


of Parliament. The Prime Minister says—and I agree with him—that it is vital that we should preserve democracy. But we cannot preserve democracy by being over-rigid and insistent on form, or by suggesting that the only contact between the Government and the people, or Parliament and the people, should be through the mouth of elected representatives on the Floor of the House. I am not one who would for a moment belittle the obligations, the duties, and the rights of a Member of the House, but I am bound to point out that in other matters things are not dealt with only through representatives of the electorate. Other grievances are remedied. May I be permitted to recall one which occurred just before we left for the Recess? There are representativs in this House who are big coal-owners. A Bill was introduced to deal with the coal industry, and at the last minute, without this House knowing anything about it, the President of the Board of Trade said that representations had been made, the proper authorities had been consulted, and the Bill was scrapped—all entirely outside this House. It is indeed a, feature of the legislation of the last few years that more often than not this House is asked merely to give its approval to arrangements which have been come to outside the House with outside interests. Therefore, it is not wise for the Government to press too hard the point that the only representations to which the Government could listen are those which are made by representatives on the Floor of the House.
I would ask the Prime Minister to recollect the circumstances in which this march has taken place. In 1934, the then Prime Minister said that the Government were earnestly considering the whole of this question, that legislation was even then under consideration by the House and that the whole matter was having their most earnest attention. We are not in that position to-day. We are in the position of having certain Regulations about to be put into force in the distressed areas which, in the opinion of the people of the distressed areas, will affect them in a way which the majority of the Members of this House do not realise. We are in the position of just having had a Gracious Speech from the

Throne in which the only mention of unemployment is a reference to one particular Act, which is to come under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, an Act which, according to the report which we have just to hand, Mr. Malcolm Stewart —a man who has done great service and the utmost he could—confesses cannot and does not deal with the major problem of the distressed areas. Therefore, these men and women have reached a time when there is nothing hopeful for them at all.
If you wish to preserve democracy, you must make our democratic institutions effective in order to redress grievances, and even if you refuse to redress them, you should give the utmost opportunity for those grievances to be ventilated and fully heard. I submit to the Prime Minister that he would be wise to see, or give this House the opportunity to see, these men and hear their case. We on this side and Members in other parts of the House will put the case of the unemployed and of the depressed areas before this House, as it has often been put already. I have heard some extremely good and eloquent speeches on the subject and I think everyone will agree that the speeches of people who know these areas have swayed the Members who listened to them in this House. But only too often the majority of people do not listen to the speeches, and it is not to be wondered at if these marchers think that perhaps they must adopt some other method in order to try to concentrate the attention of this House on their grievances.
I suggest that in these circumstances, in the interests of democracy and not against democracy, the Prime Minister would be wise to hear for himself and judge what these grievances are. We want a peaceable redress of these grievances. There is far too much violence in the world for us to want, in any way, to encourage violence, and the right way to prevent these things coming to a head is to see that no one has any opportunity of saying that they have not had a hearing. I move this Motion because I think these matters ought to be brought to the attention of the Government, who, on their own confession, have nothing whatever to offer these areas, except regulations, which those who know the areas best, quite apart from whether they


belong to this side or to the other side M politics—ministers of religion, and social workers—say will be destructive of the whole life of the people in those areas and will inflict great and lasting loss on this country.

8.3 p.m.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The last debate on a Motion of this kind was one which will be in the memory of many Members in this House as having taken place two years ago, but there is one notable difference between that discussion and to-night's, in this respect, that two years ago no Front Bench Member on the Opposition side took part in the Debate.

Mr. ATTLEE: I took part in it, and the right hon. Gentleman who was then Member for Darwen spoke on behalf of the Liberals.

Mr. BUCHANAN: May I say that it was my Motion which was debated on that occasion, and both the right. hon. Gentleman above the Gangway and the then leader of the. Liberals spoke in support of it.

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not think the then Leader of the Opposition spoke that night, hut, at any rate, it is not pertinent to my argument, and I apologise if my memory was wrong. Be that as it may, to-night the Leader of the Opposition has lent his powerful aid in this Debate and that, I think, puts it on a rather different footing from the Debate of two years ago. I wish to give the House the reasons which have animated me and the Government in adhering to a precedent which has existed for some years. It is difficult to know always where true wisdom lies, and only time can prove it. The Leader of the Opposition said that in his view it would be wise of me to accede to this request. In my view—and, as I say, time alone will show which of us is right—I think he may live to feel that he was not wise in the vi w which he took to-night.
Since the War this question of marchers has been a difficult question which has faced every Government. The difficulties are obvious to anyone who has the responsibility for the maintenance of law and order, and for several years successive Governments have taken the course which we have taken on this occasion,

and I had to ask myself, when the question was put to me, whether I felt it right and wise to make a breach in the continuity of refusal which, as I say, has been followed by successive Governments. For reasons that may or may not commend themselves to the House, I decided that it was my duty in my position to adhere to that precedent. I was unwilling to take what I considered to be the great responsibility of breaking down that precedent and leaving a situation in which I saw many grave difficulties for whoever might be my successor, whether he happened to be a successor of my own party, or a successor, as he must inevitably be at some time, of the party opposite.
Let me say at once that there are many things in these appeals that would naturally make a Prime Minister feel that he might do some good by acceding to such a request. But for many years, and certainly this year, everyone who came on these marches knew what the practice had been and what the position of the Government was. If every man did not know it, the organisers did, and one does feel a great deal of sympathy with men who may be encouraged to embark on these marches under the supposition, possibly, on the part of some of them, that something will happen which you know will not happen.
Now I come to the reasons which, in my view, have made successive Governments adopt the view which they did adopt. The right hon. Gentleman spoke quite truly about civil disorder. All of us, whatever our party views may be, must have been horrified at what has taken place in many countries in Europe since the War, in civil strife. We have been singularly free from it in this country. I spoke the other night for a few minutes on certain tendencies in Europe to-day and expressed my feeling as to the danger of them, but we must not forget that representatives of those tendencies are in this country, and are just as anxious to proceed by force as their brothers in foreign countries. We are a long, long way, I agree, in this country from it, but whether it be on the extreme Right or the extreme Left. the procedure is the same. The procedure is to cause trouble, to cause fights with the police, with the guardians of law and order. We have seen it in Europe in many countries. If and when


that begins, we have seen also how those who are strongly opposed to those people will use force in their turn, and although I believe that it might be on a small local scale in this country, yet that is the way in which civil strife begins—civil strife that may not end until it is civil war. I feel that we have no right to play with these things.
Now let me come back once more to the mere question of the appearance at the Bar of this House or of direct access to the Government, of people who are not Members of the House of Commons. It is not a question of derogating from the dignity of Members at all. The theory, right or wrong, of our Constitution is the theory of representative government, and I agree entirely with what the Leader of the Opposition said about the way in which the tragic case of these areas has been put in this House by the representatives of the areas. That case has suffered no whit by the way in which it has been put. But supposing, it may be from sentiment or from sympathy—admirable motives—you depart from the lines hitherto laid down, you then alter the conception of that basis and every body of men, anyone who can be organised—and we know what organisation and propaganda in this age can do —will have the right, which no Government then may dare to deny, to appear at the Bar or to see the Prime Minister or the Cabinet.
I do not say that the sky would fall if it occurred on this occasion, but you may depend on it, that whatever elements there are in this country which look out for trouble, whatever elements there may be in any foreign country which wish to utilise any movement in this country to cause trouble to Governments, they will be alert to use, in the most skilful way, the opening you have made for them. And though I think it extremely probable that my responsibility will have ended by then, yet I can see a most anxious time for the right hon. Gentleman, when he is either Prime Minister or a leading Member of a Labour Government in future, and when he finds that under conditions which exist owing to modern transport, conditions which exist owing to modern propaganda, he may have to face, not a few hundreds, or a thousand or more, but vast mobs that may come to him, and by that implicit threat of force try to exercise a control

over the Government that they have failed to get through the ballot. That is the real danger. When once the door is open, however little way the door may be opened, you are taking a step from which you cannot go back, and I can see a position arising quite easily in which you might have rival claimants for the personal attention of a Government and fighting as to who should be seen first, or as to who should have the right to be there at all.
Believe me, Sir—you may think it is because I am a Tory, but I think I can look from the position of the head of the Government, quite apart from whatever innate Toryism I may have in me—I am thinking just as much of the responsibility of future Governments as I am of myself. And mark this: From the nature of the case it will always be harder, and it will require more moral courage, on the part of a Labour Government to maintain law and order in difficult times than is called for from us; and it is not always an easy task. Governing a democracy, even a democracy like our own, is full of problems. It is not always easy, and with the best of intentions you may make mistakes. But I am convinced that to do what I am asked to-night would be a very grave mistake, a mistake because of the seeds of trouble it would have in it. If an act could be committed which would form no precedent, and no conclusion could be drawn from it, it would be another thing, but you would create by this a new precedent—in my view, in the present state of the world, a really dangerous one—and for that reason I felt, when I had the pleasure of meeting a deputation yesterday that discussed this matter with me with the deepest sincerity and courtesy, that, however much I would have liked on many grounds to do what was wanted, in my position it would have been an act of cowardice, and I should have hopelessly, if I may use the vernacular "queered the pitch" of those who came after me. If that pitch has to be queered, let it be queered by the man or the men who will be responsible for what may happen in future. That responsibility I cannot and will not face.

8.20 p.m.

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister has studiously avoided answering one of the


main points which was made by the Leader of the Opposition. Does he deny the fact that many manufacturers' groups coming in their cars to Downing Street are received by Ministers of the Crown and consulted on problems that face the Government? Neither he nor the Chancellor of the Exchequer can deny the fact that there are constant consultations going on between such groups of people in this country, financial and industrial, and Ministers of the Crown, with regard both to prospective legislation and to the effects of legislation that has been passed. The difference in this case is that these men and women have walked many hundreds of miles to London and have not come in cars to Downing Street. It is quite idle for the right hon. Gentleman to suggest that it is a departure from any constitutional principle in this country, or any principle that has been followed by any Government of this country, that they should consult, upon matters of legislation, bodies of people, groups of people, who are particularly and peculiarly interested in the subject matter of the legislation and who are not Members of this House of Commons. At no time have the Government given an opportunity to these people, who are peculiarly affected by the means test, to put their first-hand point of view before the Government, and one is not surprised at hearing speeches such as I heard last night at a gathering where some of the hunger marchers were speaking, when they said that the only possible reason why the Prime Minister and the Cabinet would not meet them was because they were afraid of them; and that, I gather, is precisely the atmosphere that the right hon. Gentleman does not wish to raise.
He spoke in his speech of the grave dangers of civil war. No one in this House wants to see the beginning of any form of civil war in this country. There is no one who desires to see the people of this country driven to such lengths that they feel that their only redress is to resort to force, but if you are to avoid that where you have long-continued evil in particular districts of a country, you must deal with the people in those districts in a special way, unless you are prepared to remedy the evil. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said the circumstances are now

peculiar because the Government have made no proposals to remedy the admitted evils which have overtaken the populations in the distressed areas. Is it to be wondered at that these people, who year after year have suffered from these evils and who have been unable to get any redress through their representatives in this House, should now believe that if they themselves can come and put the case to the Government, the Government may be able to view it in a new light?
And when they know, as we know, that other people can get their evils redressed, that Lord Nuffield does not have to have his case put by a representative in the House of Commons, that he can go round and collogue with any Minister he likes because he is sufficiently wealthy and influential, when they know that, and it is blazoned through all the papers of the country, with an advertisement of Morris's cars on other pages, surely they are entitled to say: "If he, with his comparatively small grievance, can be received by Minister after Minister, can get statements made by the Cabinet as to what is his position, surely we, 2,000 of us, coming from these areas where complaints have been going on year after year, are entitled to be received and to have our case heard by Ministers of the Crown as fully and with as great a consideration as Lord Nuffield or anyone else receives."
I suggest that when we have, as we had in this case, an orderly demonstration proceeding through the whole length and breadth of the country coming to London, when nearly 250,000 people join in a demonstration in Hyde Park in one of the most orderly demonstrations that has ever been held, for the right hon. Gentleman to say that, because he is afraid of civil war, he refuses to receive these marchers is to make them think that there is no use in peaceful demonstrations. It is to give the very handle he does not want to give to those who say, "What is the good of your marching peacefully and behaving yourselves if the Cabinet pay no attention to it?" and, therefore, suggest to them that they should use other methods. If the Prime Minister wants to maintain democracy in this country and the constitutional forms of this country, I suggest to him that when there is a deep-seated evil and people who are suffering from it, even though they be poor, take the trouble


to march—some of them 700 miles—to London in order that they may be received and put their case before either Parliament or Ministers, the Government should say, "We are just as prepared to meet the poor as we are to meet the rich, and we are just as prepared to listen to the case put up by the poor people outside the House of Commons as we are to listen to the case put up by the rich people who want some advantage from the Government."
I hope that the Prime Minister will realise that this hunger march has created throughout the country a very profound feeling, that it has stirred up the working-class to a realisation of the sufferings of the people in the distressed areas. People all over the country are waiting to see whether the Prime Minister has the courage to meet the hunger marchers, to hear their arguments and to put arguments against them, to prove to the hunger marchers that the Government can do nothing for them. I venture to suggest to the Prime Minister that if he were faced with a body of these hunger marchers he would find it difficult to prove that the Government can do nothing for them. I suggest to him that the reason for refusing to see them is that the Government have no case.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. LENNOX-BOYD: I should like to support the wise and statesmanlike plea that the Prime Minister has just made. Before I do so, I would like to say with what regret I, personally, and all who are sensible of their responsibilities in East Africa, feel that the private Member's Motion in the name of the hon. Member for the London University (Sir E. Graham-Little) has unavoidably been squeezed out, and how much we hope that on a future occasion we shall have a chance of debating the position of the natives in East Africa. With a number of my friends I have recently been in contact with certain of the distressed areas and I spent a considerable time in the county of Durham and a period somewhat less long in Merthyr Tydfil. I have seen sights which have shaken me out of any complacency into which I might have been inclined to drift because of my own more happy personal and political surroundings. I am resolved that whatever contribution T can make in the course of the next few years shall be

mainly directed towards the alleviation of those conditions, a continuance of which is a reproach to all parties and to the whole nation. When one considers that actually on this day there are thousands of men in Merthyr Tydfil and elsewhere who are joining in the Armistice Day celebrations, men who played their part magnificently in the War, and who since have undergone the horrors of extended unemployment, the obligation on a generation like mine which entirely escaped the world conflict is one that we cannot possibly renounce.
I am perfectly sure that in resolutely refusing to accept the request of the Leader of the Opposition my right hon. Friend is acting in the best interests of the distressed areas themselves. It is not going to be by hunger marches, but by adequate Parliamentary and nation wide presentation of their case that the national conscience is going to be aroused. It is for the private Member of Parliament so to put the case in this House and over the whole country that some of the enthusiasm which the League of Nations Union two years ago mobilised for their peace ballot with all its consequences shall be directed towards rousing the national conscience on this issue. If Members of the Opposition are anxious to have this House invaded in a way that is a denial of our constitutional and traditional practice, it is to suggest to the hunger marchers and to other people that they do not feel themselves qualified adequately to put the case of the distressed areas. The right hon. Gentleman started a historical recital. He spoke rightly about the Debate which took place two years ago on this very question, and when he mentioned 1934 I had the rather fleeting hope that his historical memory was going to carry him a little further back and that he would come to the days of 1930 when he himself was a Minister of the Crown. On that same occasion we were blessed by having the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) also in the national administration.
There was then a great national outcry about the conditions of the distressed areas. There was this difference which I ought to note in passing, that there were over a million more people out of work then than there are now. A hunger march was organised and nation-wide publicity was obtained by the organisers


of the marchers, some of whom are no doubt associated with the march the circumstances of which we are debating to-night. They came to Downing Street and to Westminster. One might have thought, listening to the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that they would have received an enthusiastic welcome here and in Downing Street as well. But what happened? They were not told that they were welcome to come and put their case before Labour Ministers. They were not told that, because they did not come by motor car, but came on foot, Labour Ministers were going to gather together and hear their pathetic appeal. Instead, they were treated, according to their own leaders, not only with indifference, but with positive rudeness. I hope that I may be pardoned if I read a report of the hunger march of 1930 when we had a Socialist Government in office. The organ chronicling this march said:
Permission for a deputation of the hunger marchers to interview the Prime Minister was refused yesterday. A deputation went to Downing Street only to find its way blocked by a strong cordon of police. Last year all the Socialist leaders were supporting the demand that Mr. Baldwin should receive the marchers. They were then facing the prospect of a General Election and had the votes of their electors to consider. Now they are in Office and have the responsibility of Government they are turning a deaf ear to the hunger marchers. Therefore the whole of the Police Force is mobilised to keep the marchers from the Labour Government—as a marcher commented yesterday, Even the Baldwin Government last year were prepared to show more courtesy and replied to our correspondence, as well as allowing us to the door of 10, Downing Street, to interview the Prime Minister's Secretary.'
What is the good of the humbug, almost nauseating humbug, of hon. Gentlemen opposite taking this line now when they hope to impress opinion in those distressed areas, but refusing even common courtesy to some of the same marchers and others who came here six years ago? I can assure the right hon. Gentleman opposite that an attempt to use the misery of the distressed areas for political propaganda, an attempt sponsored and, indeed, supported by men who pay lip-service to constitutional usage and tradition, is not only disreputable to them themselves, but disastrous to the interests of the distressed areas as well. If there is going to be, as I believe there

will be, a vigorous tackling by His Majesty's Government of this problem, I am confident that it is going to be brought about by ordinary efficient Parliamentary discussion, and by rousing the national conscience outside by regular and constitutional means.

8.36 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: The Prime Minister a, short time ago put before us a number of considerations with which, I imagine, nearly everybody in the House will agree, but, if one may suggest it with great respect to the right hon. Gentleman, what he had to say seemed to me singularly irrelevant to the issue which the House has to decide to-night. The right hon. Gentleman used a phrase "implicit threat of force." In the march we are considering this evening there has been no threat of force, either implicit or explicit. Also, he spoke about creating a precedent, but as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) pointed out, we all know that no new precedent is created when a deputation is received by a Minister of the Crown. Hon. Members who were present at Question time will have gathered that my hon. Friends and myself propose to support this Motion for the Adjournment. We do so because we agree with the proposition that an opportunity should be given to these men to express, at any rate to responsible members of the Government, the grievances which they have brought to Westminster. As I understand it, it is simply because no such opportunity has been given them that the Leader of the Opposition has brought forward this Motion.
I am not particularly concerned about the actual form of the Motion. As far as we are concerned, we are not in favour of reviving the ancient custom whereby petitioners themselves appear to plead their case in person at that Bar, because that dates from a time before there were any modern methods of publicity or of making grievances known, and a time when the great majority of the people in this country had no sort of representation in this House. And it is quite easy to appreciate the point that if we receive one deputation at that Bar it would be very difficult to refuse to receive a large number of others. Nor


do we say that anyone in this country has a right to come and put his grievances in person before the Prime Minister or any Member of the Cabinet. But, admitting those facts, we in this part of the House take the view that it would have been at any rate a wise and a gracious and a statesmanlike act if arrangements had been made for one or two spokesmen from these marchers to have come and put their grievances before some responsible Minister.
What are the objections which have been raised or which can be raised? It has not been suggested to-day that this march is not sufficiently large or sufficiently represented—I do not know of any speaker who is going to suggest that —but it was indicated at Question Time, I thought, in the! Prime Minister's reply, that one of the reasons for not receiving these marchers was that they wished to discuss certain matters which only last summer were decided in this House. It may be suggested that they are organised by persons with certain political views. That is the kind of thing which has been hinted, at any rate, in this Debate, and which was stated quite openly in the last Debate in 1934. It appears to me that that kind of defence is not open to the Government on this occasion. We all know that there have been two marches recently, the march which came from Jarrow and this other march, the members of which came to this House and to the Lobbies yesterday, and which represents many parts of the country. It is perfectly true that the Jarrow marchers did not ask to be heard in this particular way, but we know quite well that if they had done so their request would have been refused, because before either of these marches started the announcement was made on behalf of the Government that they were not to be received and were not to be afforded an audience of any kind.
So it is not a question of the size of the march or of what subject they wish to raise with any Minister they may happen to see; it is not even a question of their political views, for whatever numbers they come in and whatever subjects they wish to raise, and whatever their political views have been, it was decided in advance that in no circumstances were they to be heard. The marchers have adopted what may be a well advised or

ill advised but is, after all, a perfectly lawful and constitutional methodol demonstration. After all, a march like this is not a small matter. I am told, and I have no reason to doubt its truth, that of the 2,000 marchers who have come to London no fewer than 500 have walked all the way from Scotland. Yesterday I had the opportunity of meeting some 33 of my own constituents, some of them men who were well advanced in years—they were not all young—who had walked over 450 miles and had been more than a month on the road, and some, we know, have come an even greater distance than that. I was amazed at one phrase the Prime Minister used when he said that the procedure was to cause trouble. I do not think there has been a single incident in the whole course of this march which could possibly give any colour or excuse for that suggestion. Throughout the march there has never been the slightest disorder or disturbance, and that is a fact which might very well have been taken into consideration by His Majesty's Ministers.
I do not want to delay the House, kit I should like to refer to something that was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol. Tie referred to the question of using peaceful means. It seems to me that very often these men who are unemployed for long periods of time, either in depressed areas or in areas which, though not scheduled as depressed, have a very high percentage of unemployment, remember things which the rest of us, somehow, have a way of forgetting. I ask hon. Members to cast their minds back to the time referred to by the Leader of the Opposition, at the beginning of 1935, when the first set of Unemployment Assistance Itegulattons was put into operation. It will not be disputed that there was very bitter feeling in almost all parts of the country. Hon. Members will recollect that local authorities were forbidden by the terms of the Unemployment Act to supplement the allowances that were made by the Board. We know what happened. There was trouble in a good many places, and something approaching a riot in Sheffield. Then the Sheffield Poor Law authorities came to London, and, in spite of the terms of the Statute, they managed to get permission to supplement out of the rates the allowances that were being made by the Board; and only a


few days later we had the Minister coming down to that Box and bringing in the standstill arrangement, going back on the very Regulations which he had introduced only two 'months before.
What was the impression created upon the minds of large numbers of the unemployed by those actions? I believe that it was the wrong impression. I know, and other hon. Members know, that the impression created was that the changes had been brought about because there had been disorder, a riot in Sheffield and a threat of serious trouble in many cities in Scotland and in the North of England. I welcomed the concessions which were made, but I always regretted the circumstances in which they were made. The unemployed in many parts of the country have not forgotten those events, and the impression that was then made upon their minds. We all agree that there has been no disorder and no suggestion of disorder, but no audience has been given to these men by any responsible Minister. The idea that will inevitably arise, and it will be sedulously fostered in a good many quarters, is that it is because there has been no disorder that they have not been heard.
For that reason, I submit to the Government and to the House that when you have a considerable enterprise—and this march has been a considerable enterprise—and people come so far and in such numbers in order to carry out a peaceful demonstration, and when that is done without a single unfortunate incident along the line of march, those circumstances ought to weigh with the Government of the day in coming to a decision. The Prime Minister said that he did not want to break with precedent, and he wanted to know why we should make this occasion an exception. Of course, I agree that it would be impossible that everyone should be heard by the Prime Minister or a member of the Cabinet, but if a reason is wanted why this should be an exception, I think the Prime Minister suggested one in the opening words of his speech. We know, because he himself admitted it, that this march, and the request to be heard by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, are not sponsored only by the marchers themselves and Members of the back benches in this House; they also hap-

pen to be sponsored by the Leader of His Majesty's Official Opposition. That is about the best reason that could be desired.
We know that Ministers are constantly receiving deputations of one kind or another. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol referred to industrialists who come and consult Government Departments from time to time; there is not a Member of this House who has not attended a deputation to this or that Minister, on behalf of some industry or interest in his own constituency. I do not think it was unreasonable to ask that the Prime Minister himself should hear these men. I will not even put it as high as that; if only, say, the Minister of Labour had been prepared to give up an hour of his valuable time in order to hear what they or their leaders had to say, it would simply have been extending to these representatives of the unemployed the same courtesy as is constantly extended to chambers of commerce, trade unions, representatives of churches and peace societies, and organisations of every kind and description. None of those organisations is told that it must be content with presenting a written petition. It is not told that it must rely only upon the eloquence of its Parliamentary representatives. These people are heard in person. We, in this part of the House, ask for a similar courtesy to be extended to the leaders of this march.
These men have not come here to discuss a small matter but to discuss the grievances of some of the depressed areas and the question of the Unemployment Regulations. The Regulations intimately affect the lives of well over 750,000 people. It is true that we passed the Regulations in this House during last Session, but does any hon. Member, even on that side of the House, believe that the Regulations are sacrosanct and not open to amendment in the future, if they are working badly? In that case many hon. Members over there would be the first to get up and ask that amendment should be made. In the circumstances, it is not unreasonable to ask that some Member of the Cabinet should have given audience to these people, who would have a far more intimate personal knowledge of these matters than any of


us in this House can have in the nature of things. For these reasons my Friends and I very much regret the attitude which the Prime Minister and the Government have taken up in this matter. We believe that if they had taken another attitude and given audience to these men, either the Prime Minister, a Minister of the Cabinet or some other responsible leader, that would have been a statesmanlike action which would have redounded to their credit.

3.52 p.in.

Sir HUGH O'NElLL: The sympathy of Members in all quarters in the House is, of course, extended to these hunger marchers, who have come long distances to London to present their case. The very fact that, in the course of their march, they have received sympathy all over the country, shows that it is realised in all quarters that they have a case to present. I want to dwell for a few moments rather upon the constitutional aspect of the statement which has been made this evening by the Opposition. The Debate arises out of a Motion which was put on the Order Paper the other day by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), and the words of that Motion were to the effect that it was desirable that the representatives of these unemployed marchers should be received at the Bar of the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) dismissed that portion of the matter rather lightly. He said that he and his friends were not in favour of receiving the unemployed marchers at the Bar of the House, but I think we cannot forget that the Motion which was put down by the hon. Member for Ebbw Vale has been sponsored and supported by the Leader of the Opposition. Therefore, we can rightly take it that there has been on the part of the Opposition a demand that members of these unemployed marchers should be able to state their grievances at the Bar of the House of Commons.
In this uninflamed atmosphere, I should like to deal with the constitutional side of that proposal. The Prime Minister dealt so admirably and so completely with this question that there is not much more that can be added on the main issue. If we were to adopt the proposal of hon. Members opposite and allowed people who have grievances to come and press them here at the Bar, we would

be going entirely contrary to the whole principle of Democracy and Parliamentary institutions. It is true that the practice of persons appearing at the Bar to state their grievances used to exist many years ago, but only in certain very limited circumstances. I think it used to be not uncommon for people to be allowed to come to the Bar of the House of Commons when certain Bills were under discussion, but those were always Bills which affected some parts of the world outside the British Isles, where the people affected could not, through their representatives in Parliament, make themselves heard. For instance, I think there have been Bills dealing with Newfoundland, Canada and Jamaica in the case of which representatives of those countries were allowed in days gone by to come to the Bar of the House and be heard there through their counsel. But that practice has long ago ceased, and to-day I think the only exception that allows anybody to come to the Bar of the House to present a petition is in favour of the Sheriffs of the City of London, who have a right to present their petitions personally at the Bar. It used also to apply tc the Lord Mayor of Dublin, though whether that is now the case I do not know. Then, outside individuals are occasionally called to the Bar of the House of Commons for the purpose of being admonished if they have committed a breach of privilege, and that, I take it, might happen even to-day.
Recently, when I was looking up the point as to who should be allowed to come to the Bar of the House of Commons, I happened to see, in connection with the right which the Sheriffs of the City of London have and which the Lord Mayor of Dublin used to have—I do not know whether he still has it—that it was at one time moved by a Member of this House, who was, in fact, my own great-grandfather, that this privilege should be extended to the Lord Provost of Edinburgh; and some Member remarked, in moving an Amendment to that Motion, that the Scots were generally thought to be prudent people, and the Corporation of Edinburgh would know better than to send their Provost 400 miles to present a petition. From that aspect, and it is purely a constitutional one, I think it would be most undesirable, and a departure from the whole tradition c f Parliament, to make this great change


from precedent and allow persons individually to come to the Bar of the House and discuss their grievances. As the hon. Member for Dundee has just said, if one set of people were allowed to do it, it could not be refused to others; and, if that were once started, it would, as the Prime Minister pointed out, be impossible to stop it, and no one could say how far we should be carried. Therefore, I think it would be most undesirable for any such course to be pursued.
If it is seriously suggested, and I take it that it is, that these persons should be received at the Bar of the House of Commons, have hon. Members opposite considered how it would be done? What would their proposal be? Would representatives of the unemployed marchers come into this Chamber and make speeches? How many of them would come? Would Members of this House of Commons be allowed to reply to those speeches? Is it the suggestion that we should start a practice in this House of having a kind of wrangle between outside persons at the Bar and Members of Parliament? These may appear to be absurd suggestions, but they are the natural, logical consequences of adopting such a proposal as is put forward from the Opposition benches. I feel that, quite apart from any ground of sentiment, and quite apart from the broad statesmanlike considerations which were put forward by the Prime Minister, it would be a very retrograde step indeed if this House of Commons were once again to start a practice of receiving grievances direct from outside people, and there would be nothing more calculated to bring democratic and Parliamentary institutions into contempt and ridicule.

9.1 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I suppose that the last speech was intended to prove to us that the right hon. Gentleman is more reactionary than his great-grandfather, and that in his hands, therefore, Conservatism is quite safe. But I venture to say that, interesting as his speech was to those of us who take some pleasure in considering constitutional precedents, it will give very cold comfort, not only to the men who have marched to London, but to the people whom they have left behind. I desire to urge upon the Government that they

should alter the attitude which they have adopted, because of the very real representative character that these marches have assumed on the present occasion. As far as the Jarrow march is concerned, that was undoubtedly representative of the whole population of Jarrow, irrespective of politics or creed. It was organised to a very large extent, and accompanied, by the Conservative agent for the division, and I know, as the representative of an adjoining constituency, that the whole of the arrangements for that march were made in circumstances which united the town more than anything that has happened during recent years; and there was a general belief that, if Parliament could be impressed with the fact that these people speak with one voice on this issue, greater attention might be given to their demands.
It has been remarkable that throughout these marches, wherever the men have stayed, they have been welcomed by people of all types of opinion, whose consciences have felt outraged by what they have seen and heard when these men have been in their midst. I know, as representing an area which has sent some of these marchers, that there is a deep and growing resentment at the fact that, while there is plenty of talk, nothing seems to be done that touches the deep-seated evils which these men have come to speak about here. I listened to the Minister of Labour only on Monday, and I really thought that, when we received the Third Report of the Commissioner for the Special Areas, we should find that it was a glowing testimonial to the Government. I am bound to say that, having spent the greater part of to-day reading it, I have yet to discover any kind word that will give the right hon. Gentleman cause for pride as he goes to sleep to-night. There is a growing feeling among these people that, because they live in remote and highly segregated communities, their position is not understood by this House and by the people of the country. If proof of that were really needed, the speech of the hon. Member for Mid Bedford (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) could, I think, be quoted in proof of it. It was quite evident that his personal acquaintance with the problem had produced in his mind a feeling that very determined efforts would have to be made if this problem was to be met.


These people come from districts which are being drained of everything that makes the continuation of a community possible. The transference of young and virile men, leaving behind the aged, the sick and the very young, means that these communities are doomed to decay and have no real hope of recovery, because the human material that would assist in that recovery is being taken away. The answer that we have had from the Prime Minister is altogether inadequate. These men have come in circumstances which could justify violence if anything could, and they have throughout the march not been found, in any one place in which they have been, guilty of anything at which the finger of scorn could be pointed. They have stated their case wherever they have had the opportunity with a restraint and a temperance which have secured for them the respect, as well as the sympathy, of the people they have met, and there is no indication that, if they were granted an interview with the Prime Minister or the appropriate Members of the Cabinet, they would pursue any different course.
Having met the marchers from my own division in the Lobby and knowing something of their close personal acquaintanceship with the distress and their ability to state their case, it is a matter of great regret that these men, who have conducted the march in a way that must excite the admiration of anyone who knows the temptations that must fall to people in their circumstances, have not been able to place their views before the Government. So far from being an outrage on the Constitution it might very well form a most valuable constitutional precedent. I do not believe it would violate any constitutional precedent at all, but I certainly was not sent here to preserve precedents which deny the rights of humanity and I shall vote for this Motion knowing that, in doing so, I voice the feeling of every individual elector in my constituency, irrespective of the party to which he may belong.

9.8 p.m.

Mr. SANDYS: I think the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) made some remarks which were a little unworthy of him. He may disagree with the policy and the politics of the Prime Minister, but it was unworthy of him to attribute

to my right hon. Friend the motive of cowardice. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"I Because I do not think anyone in the House honestly believes that the Prime Minister was actuated by a motive of that kind. Anyone who has been on a deputation to Ministers knows how very easy it is for them to hear what the deputation have to say and let them go away without saying very much to them. It needs much more courage on an occasion of this kind, when you have a large number of marchers waiting outside, to say you will not receive them. It is perfectly clear that the Prime Minister's decision was taken in the interest of the preservation of our democratic liberties, and I challenge anyone to suggest anything to the contrary. The hon. and learned Gentleman referred to consultations by the Government with industrialists. Is it not natural and right that the Government should consult all people whom they consider have some contribution to make, people who have expert knowledge on the subjects which are before the Government? The Government have again and again received representatives of organised labour. Likewise they received only the other day the municipal representatives of Jarrow, and quite rightly, in order to hear their point of view.
The Government must be themselves the judges of whom they shall receive and whom they consider has a contribution to make. Again, this House of Commons has the right to decide whom it shall receive and hear at that Bar. I am sure if we thought that the representatives of these marchers had some information to impart to us which we could not obtain by other means we should want to hear them, but we do not feel that that is the case. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid Bedfordshire (Mr. Lennox-Boyd) reminded the House of the manner in which the Labour Government in 1930 dealt with a similar march. It was a very apt reminder. Nevertheless we want to deal with this matter entirely on its merits. The marchers wish to present a grievance. They are particularly concerned with the working and the application of the means test and with the distress of unemployment. Those are questions which have been fully debated in the House again and again.
I much regret that the Leader of the Opposition tried to make this a question of sympathy with the marchers and the


unemployed, and also a question of public policy. It is not a question of sympathy and it is not a question of public policy. The right hon. Gentleman also referred to the inclusion of the Special Areas Development Act in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. There are many of us on this side, too, who would like to discuss that question, but it is not the issue to-night. We are not concerned with the rights and wrongs of the policy of the Government or with the conditions in the distressed areas. The issue to-night is whether or not the Government have been wrong in not receiving the marchers and providing facilities for them to be heard. A march is a legitimate form of political demonstration, and there are marches that do good and marches that do harm. We have recently seen marches and countermarches of Fascists and Communists, the Fascists through Bethnal Green and the Communists through Regent Street and Piccadilly. Those sorts of political antics are not profitable. On the other hand, marches such as that of the men from Jarrow and also the marchers with whom we are concerned this evening may very well do a lot of good, not by trying to talk in the House of Commons but by marching through the country and awakening the social conscience of the people in places where prosperity has returned. It may make those people alive to the fact that there are parts of these islands which have remained high and dry out of the reach of the tide of trade revival. A march is a legitimate form of public demonstration, but that is not to say that it confers any right to be received by the Government or by Parliament.

Mr. MAXTON: You should not take it away.

Mr. SANDYS: It takes away no right.

Mr. MAXTON: That is what the Prime Minister said.

Mr. SANDYS: He certainly did not suggest that they were deprived of any right. They have the same rights as anyone else. But if everyone with a grievance had to be received by the Cabinet or by Parliament there would be no end to these hearings and counter-hearings. There are already sufficient complaints that Parliamentary procedure

is slow. We would never get on with our work at all. My right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) rightly pointed out what the logical result would be. If everybody had access to that Bar this House would eventually be turned into a public meeting hall. I do not believe that any of us would take the trouble to seek re-election if we could just walk into this Chamber and express our views. The contention of the Leader of the Opposition is that the marchers have not had an opportunity of presenting their case. I submit with all sympathy that the Government and Parliament know their case. We know their case full well. The marchers may not agree with the Government's policy, and they may not agree with the way in which the Government are dealing with the matter. But what are Members of Parliament here for if it is not to put the case of the people whom they represent? The Leader of the Opposition said that Members of Parliament were not listened to. I cannot believe that the marchers would be listened to with more attention than hon. Members. But I utterly deny the suggestion that hon. Members are not listened to. Any hon. Member who has anything worth saying is listened to very attentively. Opinions may differ, and that is what hon. and right hon. Gentlemen mean. When they express a view which is not shared by the Government or their fellow Members, it is naturally not always acted upon, but that does not mean that they are not listened to.
I submit that these marchers could do nothing to advance their interests which could not be better done by those who represent them here in this House. There is no lack of sympathy for the marchers on all sides of the House. I do not think that hon. Members opposite will suggest that sympathy does not exist in all parts of the House for those men and their difficulties. That is not the issue to-night. The issue is not one of sympathy, but is concerned with the duties of government and the procedure of Parliament. One of our most undisputed democratic liberties is the right to demonstrate, but there are places where it is proper to demonstrate and places where it is not proper to demonstrate, and I do not believe that Parliament is the proper place to stage a public demonstration.


The business of legislation can be conducted only by sober argument and cool discussion. We are not likely to be assisted in our work by the appearance at that Bar of partisans of various policies. I therefore trust that the sympathy which undoubtedly exists for these men and for the unhappy position in which they and many others are to-day in the distressed areas will not be allowed to influence the decision of the House on an issue which is not one of social policy but is concerned with an important constitutional question which fundamentally affects the efficient conduct of democratic government, the independence of Parliamentary discussion and the whole principle of popular representation.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. BUCHANAN: Two years ago I happened to move a similar Motion to that which, I am very glad to say, the Leader of the Opposition has undertaken to-night. I think that to-day the circumstances have not changed very much. Those who have spoken from the benches opposite have not met the case for the refusal of the Prime Minister to meet the marchers. It is rather curious that every Member who has spoken on the opposite-side of the House dealt with only one issue—that of appearing at the Bar of the House of Commons. No one has made the slightest attempt to defend the conduct of the Prime Minister. All that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwood (Mr. Sandys) said was that there had been rather an unfair argument by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), but he did not appear to make any reasoned argument. I want to try to put the case as I see it. I do not want to enter into competitions about distressed areas. Many of us represent distressed areas. I represent a division which has been a Jarrow ever since I knew it. Gorbals was never anything else but a Jarrow. I was born in that Jarrow, and I am likely to die in or near to it the way I see things going. I used to say that the first three years were hard, and then you got used to it.
The issue to-night is that certain unemployed men and women should be heard by the Prime Minister and the House of Commons. That is the plain issue, and may I say to the Constitutionalists that the right of men to be received at the Bar of the House of

Commons is still a constitutional right. It has not been revoked, but is one which the House of Commons has seen fit to continue. It is true that that right should only be exercised rarely, but it is a right. If it is held to be a right to come to the Bar of the House of Commons, can there be a greater case for men or women coming to the Bar than that of unemployment and poverty. I do not ask that every case should be heard. Parliament should be jealous of its rights and more than careful in granting permission, but now and again on a great moral issue which moves the heart and soul of the people the House of Commons has the right to say that the things that govern the verdict should be set aside. There is no question of turning this House into a public meeting place. Who has not sat on a great town council and heard unemployed marchers present their ease with as much dignity and capacity as any other person? I have heard speeches of sentiment, and if I have one criticism to offer the Labour party it is that I hope that they will keep their sentiment. A movement like theirs without sentiment is a lost movement. I am never ashamed of sentiment; I am proud of it. I have a brother-in-law who has tramped the streets for years and years. I cannot tell of his struggles. I cannot picture the sufferings of his children and his wife. I cannot do it. I could not come down to the House of Commons, were I gifted ten times better than I am, and picture his struggles. If he came there and told you how he feeds his bairns on 3s. a week it would make an impression that the eloquence of all of us could never make.
It is said that other people who have been received have expert knowledge. Suppose that two years ago you had taken my advice—and on most of these issues I have been generally correct—and you had heard the marchers, here at the Bar or privately, do you not think that their expert knowledge would have saved you from the disasters of a few months afterwards; that, if you had heard these people tell you of the effect that the Regulations were having, it would have saved you from the humiliating retreat? Have they not expert knowledge of a subject that few understand? What is the difference between the unemployed marchers and any other section of the community? The Trade Union Congress has the right of access;


great bankers, farmers, every kind of interest has a right of access. [Interruption.] Well, they get it. I will withdraw the word "right," and give the hon. Member his little twist of words, and put it that they have a right of being received. If the marchers came to London in a train instead of marching, would that make any difference What constitutes the refusal? Is it because they have marched? Let there be no mistake that these men have a case. Nobody has denied it. Lord Nuffield had plenty of people to speak for him in this House. He is the one man who seems to have got every party touched, and he was received by the Prime Minister, and practically by the Cabinet. I would like to say in fairness to the Labour Government, and as one who was among its most severe critics, that it is not accurate to say that the Labour Prime Minister refused to see them. He did receive them ultimately. The hon. Member for Bridgeton (Mr. Maxton) and the hon. Member for Dumbarton Burghs (Mr. Kirkwood) brought a deputation of unemployed men to 10, Downing Street and were met, and they put their own case in their own way. [An HON. MEMBER: "When was that?"] In 1930. These men and women asked for their case to be heard.
The poorer the people are, the more defenceless they are, the more inarticulate they are, the more right they have to be heard. Lord Nuffield had a hundred and one channels available if he had not been received. If the brewers are not heard they have a hundred and one other means of pressure; if the farmers are not heard they have a hundred and one other means of pressure; if trade unionists are not heard they have other ways of bringing pressure. But if these poor people are not heard, what other means have they? They have none. Years of unemployment have made them as derelict as the towns in which they live. They are miserable, poor people with nothing at all, yet you refuse to receive these folk—derelict waifs. They have little voting power. But they have souls, they have the same blood as you and I. I would say to the Prime Minister, in these days when they say lie is about to retire, that if he had received these people he would have retired with

a gesture and a nobility of mind greater than he had ever possessed in the past.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: After the appeal of the hon. Member it would be difficult to claim with justice that the poorer people are not heard or represented in this House. However violently we may disagree with the hon. Member and his colleagues, they do what they can for the lowest classes in the community. This Debate has been conducted hitherto with commendable and almost hallowed calm, and I do not wish to engage in any fervent controversy. I fully understand, though I do not agree with, the extremely awkward position in which hon. Members of the Labour party find themselves today; they must be feeling, as well as the Prime Minister and hon. Members on this side, that there is some concern for the future which it would be wise to consider and which may well affect them. I find it difficult to understand the position of the Liberal Opposition. How far and how woefully have they got from the Liberal policy of the nineteenth century, which enjoyed above all things great respect for parliamentary practice and constitutional tradition. I can only imagine that the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) thinks that he is not likely in the near future to have much to fear in supporting the Adjournment of the House tonight.
What is the real argument on this side? It is a question largely of degree, as well as of constitutional practice. May I pay tribute at this juncture to the way in which the unemployed marchers have conducted themselves? Two or three years ago we had similar marches and there was a refusal to receive them. At that time there was some disorder, but this time there has been none. I think the House welcomes the way in which these men, who feel a definite sense of grievance, have conducted themselves.
The point at issue is whether these great marches, conducted even in the most orderly manner, advancing upon the capital at certain times when the House is sitting, are or are not conducive to the best interests of Parliamentary government. The Leader of the Opposition said, and so did the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) that if you went in a big motor car to


Downing Street, if you were Lord Nuffield, you would be received and you could lay down your grievance. That is a bad example to give, because Lord Nuffield was not received for some months. The Leader of the Opposition mentioned what he described as the monstrous withdrawal of the Coal Mines Bill, because the coal owners objected. The withdrawal of a Bill is nothing new. It is no new precedent to withdraw a Bill. Hon. Members opposite, unless they have very short memories, may recollect that in 1930 there was a Bill introduced to deal with the hours of work by the Government that they were then supporting. It was called the Industrial Employment Bill, but it was withdrawn because the trades unions and other elements objected to it.
It is true that many interests, including trade unions, are frequently received by Government Departments to discuss points of interest not only to them but to the community as a whole. Why is it therefore that the Prime Minister, speaking on behalf of the Government has refused not only to receive the deputation but to allow these unemployed marchers to appear at the Bar of the House? My right hon. Friend the Member for Antrim (Sir H. O'Neill) has pointed out the great difficulties that would arise if they had been received. I agree. The difficulties are very great, but even if it were possible to receive them it would not be advisable. The hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) referred to this march as being a considerable enterprise. It is precisely because it is a considerable enterprise that it is inadvisable to receive a deputation from it. If you were to have from all parts of the country marchers advancing upon this House at the same time—it might be fishermen from Mevagissey who felt that they were not getting a big enough price for their fish, or men from South Wales who were unemployed, or woollen workers from Bradford who were having a hard time—and all these marchers who were advancing on London, obtaining much sympathy and headlines in the Press, had a feeling that they could get the Government by that means to give them all that they wanted, there would be an end of Parliamentary government for ever.
If that point can be established, and it is very difficult to controvert it, may I offer one concrete consideration to hon. Members opposite? Next week we are to be presented with a Bill called the Public Order Bill. That Bill will, among other things, prohibit the wearing of uniforms. There are a number of people who call themselves Fascists and go about wearing black shirts. I understand that under this Bill they will no longer be allowed to wear these black shirts. I have no sympathy with Fascism in this country or outside it. These Fascists are not represented in this House, as the unemployed marchers are represented. Is there anything to prevent a march upon London by Fascists from all over the country, claiming the same right, if it were given to the unemployed marchers, to be received either by the Prime Minister or at the Bar of the House. What would hon. Members opposite think of that? Would they approve of it. Would they say "Here are these Fascists? They are not represented here, and yet they are not to have the same right as the unemployed marchers." Whether we agree with the Fascists or not they are British subjects, and they have as much right to appear before the Bar as unemployed marchers.
If the Prime Minister had received a deputation from the marchers he would be taking up, and the House would be taking up, the attitude that you have only to come in sufficient numbers to London and to receive sufficient publicity, for the Government and the House of Commons to give in. That would be the end of Parliamentary government in this country. Therefore, with all respect, I do urge hon. Members opposite to consider once and twice the question as to whether they are to give in to what amounts to force, even if it is not exercised, and to consider what might well happen when they are called upon to form a Government if the same conditions arose. Would they or would they not refuse to receive a deputation of marchers to London? If they consider the matter from the point ov view of possible Fascists marchers in the future, I think they will be wise not to press the Motion to a Division.

9.43 p.m.

Mr. GALLACHER: I should like to draw attention to the fact that these marchers have marched from all parts of


the country because they feel so deeply the conditions that exist in their areas. Theyhave marched also in order to arouse the public conscience. That is a big factor of the march. They have been arousing the public conscience in all parts of the country, and now they want the Prime Minister and the House of Commons to assist them in arousing the public conscience further. If the Prime Minister will receive the marchers or if the House of Commons will allow them to speak here it would have an enormous effect in arousing the public conscience. It is about time that something like this took place. I spoke to a friend to-night and he told me that he attended a meeting last night where there were a number of speakers, some of them experienced, but the two speakers who made the real impression were two marchers, a man from Scotland and a woman from Lancashire. They were not experienced speakers, but the story they had to tell was a story of actual life coming right from the heart.
I heard one hon. Member say that he had been to Durham or Merthyr to see the distressed areas. It is very nice to look on these scenes of suffering from the outside, but I could bring before the hon. Member a man and his wife whom I visited the other day, and if they could stand at the Bar of the House and tell in simple language the life and the sufferings they have to endure, they might change the attitude of the Prime Minister. That would give an opportunity for arousing still further the public conscience. Instead of giving any assistance in dealing with this problem, the Prime Minister says: "Hush. There is civil war somewhere about. It is the Communists." Why always talk about the Communists? Why always associate the Communists with disorder and civil war? This sort of thing has got to stop.
Demonstrations and marches are the right of the workers of the country. There have been demonstrations since the War and often much trouble; but there were demonstrations before the War, with much trouble. There were demonstrations in 1908, in Glasgow, Birmingham, Manchester and South Wales, but did the unemployed use violence? No. The violence came from the other side. When the guns were fired at Tonypandy, who fired them? Was

it the Communists? No. It was your side. I declare again that the working classes never have and never will initiate organised violence. The violence has always been against the working classes, and there is no Communist propaganda anywhere that advocates violence. It points out that the workers in moving forward towards a higher and better life will be faced with violence from the financiers and bankers generally.
Now I come to the question of receiving the marchers. I want to make an appeal to the Government to receive them and allow them to come to the Bar of the House. Why not? It may not be a practice which has been in operation for a long time, but I remember that when hon. Members opposite wanted to get some of us in gaol in 1925, before the strike of the 'miners, they went back 150 years in order to get an Act. Let us go back if necessary to some of the early precedents 'and allow one or two of these people to come and state exactly the conditions in their areas and how their wives and children are bearing up under terrible burdens. I make this appeal to the National Government particularly because the National Government itself came into existence as the consequence of a march. Hon. Members opposite appear to be proud of the National Government. It is all affectation, I know. But the National Government came into existence as the direct consequence of a march. Not a march of the poor from distressed areas, but a march of the bankers to No. 10, Downing Street. Ask the Lord President of the Council. Out of that march came the National Government.
Are the Government afraid of meeting a delegation? Are they afraid that if they meet men representing these depressed areas they may be won over and that out of the deputation will come anew coalition? Is the Prime Minister afraid that he will be under the necessity of throwing over his colleagues, the unemployment Regulations and the means test? Do not tell me that it needs courage on the part of the Prime Minister to meet the delegation. Do not let anybody tell me that it needs courage to say "No" to those who are poor. What do we find? Has there been any courage shown in refusing to meet any of the vested interests of this country? No.


We do not want courage in this matter but humanity. The Prime Minister and the Government are prepared to meet experts. Experts on finance, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will meet at any time. Experts on the making of aeroplane engines and experts on machines, they will meet at any time, but men 'and women who represent suffering humanity, no. Is that their attitude? Machines and profits are of more concern than men, women and children. Thousands upon thousands of innocent children are represented by these marchers. I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Labour, because I know that the Minister of Labour is very often engaged on Sundays in the pulpit preaching humanity. Let us have a little practice in humanity on the part of the Government and the supporters of the Government. Let us sweep aside all the trivialities which have been raised as to precedents. The Prime Minister can agree with the Leader of the Opposition to receive these marchers because of the special circumstances which exist, and it does not commit him or the Government to receive anybody else at any time. Any receiving that is done will be on its merits.
A terrible situation exists in this country to-day, with all this unjust suffering. These men are not criminals, they are the victims of the profit-making system for which you are responsible and, therefore, seeing that there is all this undeserved suffering surely it is possible to reconsider the decision. Why should not the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Labour agree to see representatives of these marchers and discuss with them how the situation which exists in the various areas can be remedied? We want to make strong men and healthy mothers in this country. We want to have healthy children, and if we can get experts on these matters let us see them, no matter where they come from. No one is more qualified to talk on these matters than these marchers, and they should be gladly welcomed by this House and eagerly received by Members of the Government in order that the fullest discussion might take place as to how the bitter situation which bears so heavily on many families might be remedied.
We hear time and time again of the necessity for building up our forces for

defence. Is there any section in this country more in need of defence than the men and women and children whom these marchers represent? If you are concerned with the real defence of the people, please meet these marchers or their representatives and discuss with them these terrible problems, which are problems to you but which represent suffering and agony for them and those who are dependent upon them.

9.56 p.m.

Mr. S. O. DAVIES: I must confess at the outset that the Prime Minister has not put me in the mood to make any further appeals to him, but I must protest against the language which he used to-night in an attempt to mislead the House as to the conduct of the marchers who have come from Scotland, England and Wales to London. Why should the Prime Minister have used that language? Why should he have accused certain persons of having encouraged the marchers to embark on that march? Why should he have dilated upon the question of civil disorder and strife? What was the right hon. Gentleman's intention in speaking on those lines to-night other than that, by implication, he wished to impute to the 2,000 marchers motives and objects which he ought to know it would not be honest and honourable to do? Surely the Prime Minister cannot be helplessly ignorant, as apparently he was this evening, about conditions in the depressed areas of this country.
May I put a question to the Prime Minister? Has he not personally received thousands of appeals and resolutions from these depressed areas? Is there a section of the population—may I make my references largely to South Wales, a district which I cannot help knowing?—is there a section of the population in South Wales, of any class or any organisation, that has not forwarded to the Prime Minister appeals and resolutions about the sad conditions that are responsible for the marchers coming to London? As one who knows most of the marchers from South Wales, I protest vehemently against the Prime Minister associating in his mind those persons with the nightmare of vast mobs—which apparently is worrying him—that are a danger to law and order. I consider the speech of the Prime Minister this evening as being nothing short of contemptible. There has not been from any place in the


country where the marchers have been the slightest complaint coming through to London about their conduct, which should win the approval of all of us. Why add insult to injury? Why indulge in such language as the Prime Minister used to-night? Why talk about mobs? Why talk about civil disorder and strife? These people are doing all they can to get rid of such a state of things as may cause disorder in this country.
May I for a moment help the Prime Minister to get to the origin of this march, as far as South Wales is concerned? He can immediately disabuse his mind of any idea that these marchers have been encouraged by any political party or any section of the population in South Wales. The fact is that if all those who were ready to take the road from South Wales to London had found it possible to start there would not have been 500 from South Wales, but in all probability 5,000. Instead of encouraging people to march to London and make their protest, the fact is that thousands of them in that coalfield were discouraged, and there is left the mere handful of 500 who have come. May I for a minute or two try to assist the Prime Minister to visualise the background in South Wales so far as these hunger marchers are concerned? As I have already stated, every section of the community, every sort of organisation—business, trade union, cultural, religious and social—has protested directly to the Prime Minister and to the Minister of Labour against the means test and the Regulations. It is of no use the Minister of Labour giving tips to the Prime Minister as though I were not telling the truth. They have received these protests. There is not a section of the population in South Wales, not any organisation or any class, which has not sent a protest to the Minister of Labour and to the Prime Minister. [An HON. MEMBER: "Even the Baptists."] Every section has sent a protest, including the Baptists.
Moreover, the disappointments which the unemployed and their families in South Wales have experienced have also been a factor in impelling them to make their protests and to appear in London in person, or in a representative deputation, to put their case before the Prime Minister. They have been led to believe,

by spokesmen on behalf of the Government, that prosperity has always been near at hand.. Cabinet Ministers have made optimistic speeches and the Minister of Labour has been more eloquent than any other person on the Front Bench. Prosperity has been promised; work and improved conditions have been promised. We have had visits by Members of the Government and by supporters of the Government. We have had in the House of Commons unlimited sympathetic references to the distressed areas. We have had inquiries of all kinds, official and unofficial, into the conditions of the depressed areas. We have had statistical surveys of the material resources of the Special Areas. We have even had a Royal Commission as far as Merthyr Tydfil is concerned. We have had Commissioners appointed. We have had a tremendous amount of publicity. As far as South Wales is concerned, we have been dissected, analysed, and microscopically examined in every nook and corner and from every conceivable angle.
What has been the result of all that? In all these approaches that have been made by Commissioners, by the Royal Commission and by representatives of different Government Departments, the people have invariably not only met those representatives courteously but have helped them in order that they might carry to the Government a clearer and more sympathetic understanding of the conditions in that coalfield. What has been the result? Not only has nothing been done to help to revive the economic and industrial conditions in that coalfield, but those conditions are being allowed to go from bad to worse.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member appears now to be entering upon a discussion of the condition of the depressed areas, but that is not the point before the House. The question before the House is the refusal of the Prime Minister to allow the hunger marchers to voice their grievance in this way.

Mr. DAVIES: I am sorry. I was making an effort to give the background and to show the origin of this march to London. I had nothing more than that in my mind. The cause of this march is one in which the Government are very considerably involved and for which they have a very considerable responsibility,


but I leave that point. With respect to the marchers, I ask why should the Prime Minister be afraid to receive them? I know the contingent from South Wales and it is not inappropriate on this day to mention the fact that nearly half of those marchers are ex-service men who served in the Great War. They went to the Cenotaph in all their wretchedness and poverty, in face of the abandonment which they have so largely experienced for a number of years past, and they placed a wreath there to the memory of their comrades who have also been forgotten as they have largely been forgotten.
May I also remind the Minister of Labour, that many of them are men skilled in the production of coal and in the working of iron and steel? But they are on the road, unemployed, and nothing is being done for them. Many of them are young men of 17 to 20 who have never had an opportunity of doing a day's work and whose future apparently is hopeless. What has been left to these men by the Government? Nothing but to take to the highroads of this country, to make such contacts as they can make with people who are sympathetically disposed towards them, and to come along here in the hope that the head of the Government would show some sympathy to them instead of the feeling which he has revealed to-night. Many of these men have been unemployed for five or six years or longer and they foresee that on the 16th of this month changes will be effected which, in the coalfield where I live, will make the struggle of thousands of them and their families far more difficult than it is at present. The Prime Minister has not been big enough to meet the representatives of these people. Only a small man would refuse to meet them while continuously meeting the representatives of the rich class. A bigger man would meet these people who have tramped the roads of this country and would show that he had sympathy with them and with the motives which inspired them to carry on, keeping body and soul together, while awaiting an improvement' in conditions.
This was the last thing left to them. They have tried everything and you have exhausted all the propaganda machinery at your disposal. Representatives of almost every Department in Whitehall have made visitations to these districts,

but, as I say, conditions are going from bad to worse. The least that a really big man in the position of Prime Minister of this country could have done, would have been to meet the representatives of these men, some of whom have been on the road for months. It would have shown that he had faith in the system which he represents and faith in the Government of which he is the head, if he had taken these men into his confidence and told them "We have faith in this capitalist system and in this Government and we have resources by which we hope to make your conditions better than they have been for a number of years." The Prime Minister believes that inevitably he will fail but it is a ghastly tragedy that these people have to pay the penalty for the workings of a wretched system.
In that coalfield of which I speak there are still vast natural riches, great industrial traditions and a fine skilled body of men. Those men are being left on the scrap-heap and we have seen to-night what consideration is shown for them by the Prime Minister, prompted by a man who is not helpful to us in this struggle—the Minister of Labour. I hope that when the speech of the Prime Minister is read to-morrow these marchers, who have conducted themselves so magnificently and so heroically, will not feel the measure of resentment and indignation which I, personally, feel at the implication which the Prime Minister was reduced to making, as to the potential causes of mass civil strife and disorder. I hope that they will overlook the very silly and dangerous indiscretions of the Prime Minister in his speech of to-night.

10.14 p.m.

Miss WILKINSON: I rise only to make a brief appeal to the Prime Minister. As far as the Jarrow marchers are concerned, and also in regard to these other marchers, their object has been to be heard at the Bar of this House. It is true that that would be a new thing and that a precedent would be created, but we are in fact in a new situation. I admit that the Prime Minister or the appropriate Minister met the Jarrow Town Council when we asked him to do so, and we had no grievance against the Government on that ground, but the Jarrow marchers and the Jarrow Town Council deliberately asked for their


petition to come before this House because they wanted to appeal to this House, because literally they had tried everything, every kind and sort of constitutional procedure, and there was no point in going through it all again, always to be met with a blank wall and the remark of the President of the Board of Trade that we must work out our own salvation. So we took him at his word and came to the only possible place where finally the grievances of the subject must be heard.
I suggest to the Prime Minister that, far from taking in any way from the dignity of this House or of the democratic representatives in this House by asking to be heard at the Bar of the House, the petition of these men and women enhances the dignity of the individual Members of this House. We say that there must be parties, that there are such things as Cabinets, and that Executives must rule, and all that, but when it comes to the final stage, the individual Member cannot hand over all his public responsibility to the Government and to the Executive which, for the time being and in 99 cases out of 100, he is anxious to stand by. I suggest that the case of these marchers is just that hundredth case and that this House might very well permit itself to hear the actual statement of these men before the Bar. After all, when it is a matter of life and death in the Law Courts of this country, the very fullest kind of appeals are allowed to be made. When it is a matter of life and death every point is pressed that a man should be heard in his own defence, and I would ask the Prime Minister whether it is not possible to stretch a point in this case, because, quite literally, it is a matter of life and death when the infantile mortality of Jarrow is double and more than double what it is in the rest of the country.
It is insufficient to say that their representatives can be heard in this House. As the hon. Member for Gorbals (Mr. Buchanan) has said, with all the good will in the world there are things which we cannot understand. As I marched down that road with those men, all of whom I knew well, whom I had worked with in my own constituency, as I marched with them hour after hour, just talking—I come from the working class myself, and my father was unemployed,

but I have never known what it was to miss a meal that I wanted—it was just as we walked and talked so intimately that I began to understand something of what it meant, day after day after day, to get up and not know what you were going to do, and never have a copper in your pocket for anything. I mean that it was a revelation to me, and no amount of investigation, and going down for a week, and no amount of talking with these men in the ordinary political sense would have taught me so much. Is this House quite sure that it can dispense with that kind of direct experience? The Prime Minister has made some very wonderful speeches about democracy, both in this House and out of it, but should there not be a richness about democracy that autocracies and totalitarian States do not know? Should it not be a flexible thing, a human thing? The Prime Minister has often spoken in this House of this country being a family, but in any family would it be the weakest who could not go to the head of the household and be heard direct?
It seems to me that we are making rather a fetish of precedent. It is so easy, where people want to, to get away from precedent. Here we have people who feel, and who have every right to feel, not only that they are up against the Government, but that behind the Government there are very sinister forces at work. We have seen it in the iron and steel trade. We do not feel that this House understands the position. We feel that there are things to be said and that before these Regulations come into force on 17th November Members of the House should know what they are going to mean. They ought to know. They ought to be willing to know what the results of their handiwork will be, and they cannot hear it from us. I do not know how a woman in a back street brings up three children on an unemployed income, and if I do not know you do not know either. The only way to get to know is to hear these men and women at the Bar of the House.

10.22 p.m.

Sir EDWARD CAMPBELL: What the hon. Lady and her predecessor on that side have said is rather beside the point. It is sometimes a great deal more difficult to say "No" than to say "Yes." These men have marched up here, they have been well supported throughout their


march by the newspapers, and to a great extent by the mass of the people with whom they came in contact, and yet the Prime Minister on the question of precedent considers it inadvisable to receive them at the Bar of the House. We are sometimes accused, and I dare say that on this occasion this party and the Government will be accused, of being unsympathetic, but I venture to say that in this instance we are a great deal more sympathetic than many Members on the opposite benches.

Mr. JAGGER: We are sick of your sympathy.

Sir E. CAMPBELL: The hon. Gentleman is always very talkative, especially when other people are talking, and I do not think that his interruption will make very much difference to the sense of the House. I was saying that we on this side have shown in this case perhaps even more sympathy, as we have done on previous occasions, than the Members opposite. The majority on this side dislike the custom that is growing up of encouraging, if not urging, such like people to take these marches and to give them the hope that by doing so they will get something which their own representatives in the House cannot get for them. These men have been what is vulgarly called, "led up the garden." I remember a few months ago, when we were discussing the means test, half a dozen or more Members on the Opposition side said, "You will see the demonstrations that will come to the House on this subject." Naturally they have engineered it so that deputations do come, and they have done a great wrong in getting these men to imagine that by such a march they will be able to get what we know, and what the Opposition know, they cannot get in such a manner, or, perhaps, in any other manner.
This is not only my opinion on this subject. I remember that last year the hon. Member for Oxford University (Mr. Alan Herbert) brought in, not under the Ten Minutes' Rule and not by drawing a place in the Ballot, one or two Private Members' Bills, one of them being in connection with divorce. I said to him at the time, and, therefore, I make no apology for saying it now, that by bringing in those Bills in that particular manner he had not one chance in ten thousand that they would ever become

the law of the land; but the people outside who were particularly interested in those subjects had their hopes raised. They saw that the Bills had been brought into the House and they would blame the system of the House of Commons because they had not become law. When I pointed this out to him the hon. Member for Oxford University said, "I am delighted that you have told me this," and on the following day he wrote to the newspapers to say that he had brought in the Bills because he thought it was a good thing to have those subjects ventilated. That was his reason; and everybody has a right to his own view. But this is rather a serious question, and the Labour party are not serious on this matter.

Mr. BUCHANAN: And that is why we like to hear lectures about divorce.

Sir E. CAMPBELL: I did not approve of what the hon. Member for Oxford University did last year, because I thought he was raising the hopes of certain people without ally possibility of those hopes being realised. To my mind the position is exactly the same this evening. If those gentlemen are allowed to put their case before us at the Bar of the House what will they be told? They will be told exactly what their representatives in this House have been told, and the Opposition, in urging this course, are acknowledging that they are very poor representatives of such people, because they are incapable of putting their case before the House so strongly that they can get things done themselves. Therefore, for all those reasons—[Interruption]—well, for any of the reasons I have mentioned—and I see that talkative man giggling again—I believe it would be far better that on future occasions the Opposition, though they may feel, and I have no doubt whatever they do feel, deeply for the distress in the distressed areas, should not induce men who are unemployed to take a march such as this has been in order to gain absolutely nothing, except to serve for a demonstration on the part of the Socialist party. If they wish to march let they themselves march, to Scotland or elsewhere, and then they will show that they are not exploiting others to their less advantage.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. MAINWARING: I am delighted to have the opportunity this evening to express a word or two upon this matter, for


I feared, having been compelled to listen to that empty, vapid nonsense which has just been delivered here, that I would not be able to control myself sufficiently to speak on this matter at any length. I represent the most depressed and distressed division in this country, where there are thousands of idle men, idle in some cases for 14 years, and thousands of wives and children. The last time we discussed this question in this House, in July, the Front Bench could not tell us what the Regulations meant. The Prime Minister asked what justification had we for making this appeal on behalf of the unemployed marchers. The justification lies in the words of that Front Bench in July, and their failure to tell us what the Regulations meant. These men know it, and it is because you failed to explain it to us, their appointed representatives, or at least you refused, that they asked the opportunity to come along, not in the first place, to stand over there at the Bar, but to see the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister anticipated the demand. The Cabinet decided, before the request came, that they would not accede to it.
It is the failure, upon the first stage, of the Prime Minister himself, and, in the second place, of the Cabinet; that is why they come to this third stage. I would like to speak to the Minister of Labour, as one organiser of a march to another. I was chairman, organising this march in South Wales. I make no apology for it; no apology is required. The tragedy of South Wales speaks for itself. Mr. Prime Minister, without any personal or feeling at all in it, we ask you to consider—

Mr. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that his remarks should be addressed to me.

Mr. MAINWARING: I am sorry, Sir, but I want to ask that this be considered. There is not a man or woman in my division that lacks faith in my ability to express their need, but I recognise that, despite their faith and confidence in myself, they may have a belief and a suspicion that, if they were personally, some two or three of them, allowed to come to the Prime Minister himself, they might carry weight. We had an expression of that fact a short while ago in South Wales, at a conference where men, trained in public speaking,

were present in large numbers. That meeting broke down. A simple working woman, untrained, who could not deliver a five-minute speech if her life depended upon it, broke down that conference with a few simple words of heart-felt experience. We believe, and they believe, that the same might be done with the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister turned them down. The march from South Wales to London has had a deaf ear turned to it.
I say this, knowing exactly what it means: the Minister of Labour is conducting a march to South Wales next week. What for? A deaf ear has been turned to the plea of these people here to-night, but next week the Minister of Labour goes to advertise charity-mongering. I hope my words will go to South Wales to-night; I hope the people of South Wales will refuse to see the deputation next week from London—will turn the insult back in their faces. We organised this march from South Wales with these Welsh words:
Nid cardod i ddyn ond gwaith"—
no charity for men but work; and the Minister of Labour is organising a march to South Wales to bless organised charity. I shall refuse to associate with it if I am asked, because I shall refuse to insult the people of the Rhondda by blessing a playground when they want work, and food, and clothing, and shelter. That is the reason why this application ought to have been acceded to. I dare not allow myself to speak about it, because I should say offensive things, possible unjustifiable things, to right hon. Gentlemen opposite; but I ask Members of this House who represent comfortable constituencies to try and imagine what it means to represent a constituency which is a cemetery of tragedy. I am pleading that these men and women, who have had 14 years of tragedy, should be given something more than a "No," and next week will be the best show that this country can provide, a grand parade of playgrounds, social service clubs, and so on. Heavens, what an insult to a people who have been suffering and starving for 14 years.

10.38 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I feel that to-night's Debate has brought clearly to the mind of every Member of the House the gravity


of the situation, and it is because I feel that a crisis has arisen in Parliamentary life that I wish to say a few words. The Prime Minister felt that he was courageous in stating to-night that he had replied in the negative to a request to meet a deputation. If ever strength was required, it is required to-day. The lessons of the Continent ought to be sufficient. Every Member of this House, and every man vested with authority, ought to take to heart the lesson of what has happened on the Continent. Just as the Devil does not like holy water, neither have I any time for the Communists. There is no need for me to hide that. But I am not unaware that even a Communist can put a justifiable claim before the House of Commons with regard to the treatment of humanity. Therefore, when I see the poverty, in the district to which I belong, of men and women whom I have known during the last 50 or 60 years of my life and see that there is not a glimpse of hope for them, I ask, why have the people no right to appeal to Caesar?
If I understand this House of Commons, it is the forum of the nation. To-day its composition is not indicative of the voice of the nation. If the Whips could be taken off, we should have a true statement in regard to the position. We find ourselves under a system of government which is no indication of the views of the nation in explaining its poverty. Every hon. Member must know in his heart of hearts that, with 1,600,000 unemployed after five years of the National Government, there is something rotten in the state of Denmark. Surely, the men and women who require food and want to place their demands before the House of Commons have the right to put their complaints forward? It will be a bad day for England and its Government when the head of the Government, whether Labour or National, fails to recognise the cry of the poor outside its doors. I am not grousing about men and women being rich, but I can see the growing menace of the breeding-ground of Communism because justice is not being done to the people. Why in the days of our prosperity should 1,600,000 be wanting the necessaries of life in the greatest Empire of the world? What is the use of speaking of liberty if our men and women starve, and why talk about religion when in your everyday actions

you fail to put Christian principles into operation?
There is not a, church in the land which would agree with the rejection of this appeal. The clergy of all denominations feel that the poor have a right to be heard, and nowhere more than in the British House of Commons. I have lived amongst poverty all my life through, and have seen men and women walking up and down the streets not able to get the bread of life. I have seen the little ones practically dying of starvation and, knowing how impotent these Opposition benches are in face of the great human cry outside, I say that the Prime Minister of the National Government has failed in his duty and his responsibility to the State because, if you turn the pleader away, you intensify the agitation outside and sow the seeds of discontent. I trust that the Prime Minister will admit even now that he has made a mistake, and it will be much better for England if he makes up his mind, representing as he does that great national party, to revoke his decision.

Mr. R. J. TAYLOR: I want to add my plea to the eloquent and able appeals that have been made to-night. I come not from a distressed area, but from an area that has an enormous number of men who have been unemployed for years, and in which there are men unemployed probably at the moment with no prospect of getting work. I come as one who has experienced exactly what they are going through. For some 18 months I and my wife and two children, after the 1931 cuts were made, had 25s. 3d. a week on which to live. Approximately 10s. was required for rent, leaving 15s. 3d., out of which every other thing had to be provided for and all the standing charges which come against the home before food can be provided. I am lucky to-day that I have been lifted out of that pit, not so much that I am here, but that I was able to get work. The ambition of these men who have come down here and are desirous of being heard is that they shall have work. I look upon this House as the symbol and the visible expression of the greatest democracy in the world. If democracy stands for anything, it is that those who are governing for the time being shall look upon the citizens whom they govern equally and alike.


Years and years ago, on account of a dispute in our mining industry, we were invited to London to meet the Ministers. We met them, and they were glad to meet us. We discussed the problem that was agitating us at the moment and went back again because we had been received by the heads of the Departments who were governing in this land at the time. If we are going to say to these workers that they are not organised in the sense that the trade unions are organised, what are we asking them to do? We are asking them to form organisations so that they may become big enough to force this House and the Government to take heed of their request. It has been said by hon. Gentlemen opposite that there is any amount of sympathy. Our people do not want sympathy, but work. If I could only persuade the Prime Minister to meet these men who have come to London and implant in their hearts a real hope for the future that work may come to them, he would have done the best day's work he had ever done since he became Prime Minister or entered public life.
There are in this country 1,600,000 men with no prospect of work apparently at the moment. If he could meet them and discuss the matter with them it would show at least that they were being taken into his confidence and that he had a real and genuine desire, and was endeavouring to find work for which they are so anxiously waiting. It has been said that to receive these marchers would be a bad precedent and would turn this House into a public hall. This problem to me is one of the greatest tragedies that has ever befallen this nation. We are standing to-day facing a problem greater, I believe, than that with which we have ever had to deal in this country. It is a problem that is affecting the lives of 1,600,000 unemployed, practically 4,000,000 people, who are eating their souls out, if our smiling, kindly, sympathetic friends on the other side could only understand. You cannot understand unless you have gone through the agony of despair. Even the men unemployed are not so much affected as the women with the hopelessness of the outlook. Surely a ray of hope a word of encouragement can be given to these people, that their feet may be lighter on the march home, if march

they do, and that if they ride they will ride with a ray of hope and a message for their families at home.

10.52 p.m.

Mr. HARDIE: If anyone on the opposite Front Bench desires to reply I will resume my seat.

HON. MEMBERS: Reply, reply.

Mr. HARDIE: The speech of the Prime Minister hurt me very much. It implied that here was a body of people who had done some injury of some kind and were to be treated like criminals. They were assumed to be in such a condition that it was not possible for the House of Commons to relax one of its precedents. What we are dealing with is a national subject. Those who have walked from Glasgow to London have not done it for fun. Some suggestion has been made in regard to the futility of that march, but the greatest futility has been the speech of the Prime Minister. He built up a case as if his whole defence had to be against a crowd of criminals who had arrived in London from different parts of the country. The plea we are making to-night is to put the House of Commons into closer relation with the people. The Minister of Labour has put into operation Regulations which meant increased distress in every home concerned, and we are being told that the unemployed marchers can tell the House nothing. They could tell the House a lot, especially to those hon. Members who have never lived a working-class life.
Like many others on these benches, one of a large family, I knew what shortage in the larder meant and what it was to be black-listed, before the word "unemployment" became rampant. Our family were black-listed because of our activities in the trade union movement. We knew then what was meant by the reality of want, not because we did anything wrong, not because we were not capable and skilled workers, but simply because we dared to fight for the rights of our own class. There are a few minutes still left and I am willing to give way if any one responsible on the Front Bench will reply. They have heard the case. Are they going to answer? The Prime Minister's reply was made before the full case had been stated. Will he tell us if any impression has been made upon his mind


in regard to human relationships. If so, will he get up and tell us what the change has been?

Question put, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 119; Noes, 237.

Division No. 4.]
AYES.
[10.58 p.m.


Adams, D. (Consett)
Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. A.
Potts, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Grenfell, D. R.
Pritt, D. N.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Anderson, F. (Whitehaven)
Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Ridley, G.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Groves, T. E.
Riley, B.


Banfield, J. W.
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Ritson, J.


Barnes, A. J.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)


Barr, J.
Hardle, G. D.
Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)


Batey, J.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Rothschild. J. A. de


Bellenger, F.
Henderson, J. (Ardwick)
Rowson, G.


Benson, G.
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Seely, Sir H. M.


Bevan, A.
Jagger, J.
Sexton, T. M.


Broad, F. A.
Jenkins, A. (Pontypool)
Shinwell, E.


Brooke, w.
Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath)
Short, A.


Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (S. Ayrshire)
John, W.
Silverman, S. S.


Buchanan, G.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Simpson, F. B.


Burke, W. A.
Kelly, W. T.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)


Cape, T.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Charleton, H. C.
Kirby, B. V.
Stephen, C.


Chater, D.
Kirkwood, D.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Cluse, W. S.
Lansbury, Rt. Hon. G.
Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)


Cocks, F. S.
Lathan, G.
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Cove, W. G.
Lawson, J. J.
Thurtle, E.


Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford
Leonard, W.
Tinker, J. J.


Daggar, G.
Leslie, J. R.
Viant, S. P.


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Logan, D. G.
Walkden, A. G.


Day, H.
Lunn, W.
Walker, J.


Dobbie, W.
McEntee, V. La T.
Watkins, F. C.


Dunn, E. (Bother Valley)
McGhee, H. G.
Watson, W. McL.


Ede, J. C.
MacLaren, A.
Welsh, J. C.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty)
Macmillan, H. (Stockton-on-Tees)
White, H. Graham


Evans, D. O. (Cardigan)
MacNeill Weir, L.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H.
Mainwaring, W. H.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Foot, D. M.
Marshall, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Frankel, D.
Maxton, J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Gallacher, W.
Mllner, Major J.
Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.



Garro Jones, G. M.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. H. (Ha'kn'y, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesey)
Oliver, G. H.
Mr. Whitetey and Mr. Mathers.


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Parkinson, J. A.





NOES.


Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J.
Bullock, Capt. M.
Davison, Sir W. H.


Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P. G.
Butler, R. A.
Denman, Hon. R, D.


Albery, Sir I. J.
Campbell, Sir E. T.
Dodd, J. S.


Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S.
Cartland, J. R. H.
Doland, G. F.


Anderson, Sir A. Garrett (C. of Ldn.)
Carver, Major W. H.
Conner, P. W.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Cary, R. A.
Drewe, C.


Apsley, Lord
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Dugdale, Major T. L.


Assheton, R.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br. W.)
Duggan, H. J.


Astor, Major Hon. J. J. (Dover)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Duncan, J. A. L.


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Starley
Channon, H.
Dunglass, Lord


Baldwin-Webb, Col. J.
Chapman, A. (Rutherglen)
Eastwood, J. F.


Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet)
Clarke, F. E.
Eckersley, P. T.


Barclay-Harvey, Sir C. M.
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.


Baxter, A. Beverley
Clarry, Sir Reginald
Ellis, Sir G.


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Clydesdale, Marquess of
Elliston, G. S.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Colman, N. C. D.
Emery, J. F.


Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Entwistle, C. F.


Birchall, Sir J. D.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Everard, W. L.


Bird, Sir R. B.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. A. Duff(W'st'r S.G'gs)
Fleming, E. L.


Blindell, Sir J.
Cooper, Rt. Hon. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Fox, Sir G. W. G.


Bossom, A. C.
Courtauld, Major J. S.
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.


Boulton, W. W.
Craddock, Sir R. H.
Ganzoni, Sir J.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C.
Goldle, N. B.


Boyce, H. Leslie
Croom-Johnson, R. P.
Graham Captain A. C. (Wirral)


Briscoe, Capt. R. G.
Cross, R. H.
Greene, W. P. C. (Worcester)


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Crossley, A. C.
Gretton, Col. Rt. Hon. J.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Crowder, J. F. E.
Gridley, Sir A. B.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Cruddas, Col. B.
Grimston, R. V.


Brown, Brig-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Davidson, Rt. Hon. Sir J. C. C.
Gritten, W. G. Howard


Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.)
Davies, C. (Montgomery)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)


Bull, B. B,
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Guinness, T. L. E. B.




Gunston, Capt. D. W.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.
Selley, H. R.


Guy, J. C. M.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M
Shakespeare, G. H.


Hannah, I. C.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Mason, Lt.-Col. Hon. G. K. M.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Harbord, A.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Heilgers, Captain F. F. A.
Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)
Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U. B'lf'st)


Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A P.
Mitchell, Sir w. Lane (Streatham)
Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)


Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan
Mitcheson, Sir G. G.
Smith, L. W. (Hallam)


Herbert, Major J. A. (Monmouth)
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.
Smith, Sir R. W. (Aberdeen)


Herbert, Capt. Sir S. (Abbey)
Moore-Brabazon, Lt.-Col. J. T. C.
Somervell, Sir D. B. (Crewe)


Holdsworth, H.
Morris, J. P. (Salford, N.)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Holmes, J. S.
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)
Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.


Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'st'r)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Hopkinson, A.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.
Spender-Clay, Lt.-Cl. Rt. Hn. H. H.


Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.
Spens, W. P.


Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
O'Connor, Sir Terrence J.
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fylde)


Hudson, R. S. (Southport)
O'Neill, Major Rt. Han. Sir Hugh
Stanley, Rt. Hon. Ollver (W'm'l'd)


Hulbert, N. J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. G.
Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)


Hume, Sir G. H.
Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton (N'thw'h)


Hunter, T.
Patrick, C. M.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)


Hurd, Sir P. A.
Peake, O.
Sutcliffe, H.


Jackson, Sir H.
Penny, Sir G.
Tasker, Sir R. I.


James, Wing-Commander A. W.
Perkins, W. R. D.
Tate, Mavis C.


Joel, D. J. B.
Petherick, M.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)


Jones, Sir G. W. H. (S'k N'w'gt'n)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Touche, G. C.


Keeling, E. H.
Pilkington, R.
Train, Sir J.


Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose)
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.
Tree, A. R. L. F.


Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Pownall, Sir Assheton
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.


Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R.
Procter, Major H. A.
Tufnell, Lieut.-Com. R. L.


Kimball, L.
Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Turton, R. H.


Lamb, Sir J. O.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.
Wakefield, W. W.


Latham, Sir P.
Ramsbotham, H.
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Leech, Dr. J. W.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Warrender, Sir V.


Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Rayner, Major R. H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Lennox-Boyd, A. T. L.
Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Wayland, Sir W. A.


Levy, T.
Remer, J. R.
Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.


Lewis, O.
Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)


Liddall, W. S.
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Willoughby de Eresby, Lord


Little, Sir E. Graham
Ropner, Colonel L.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel G.


Llewellln, Lieut.-Col. J. J.
Ross, Major Sir R. D. (L'derry)
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Lloyd, G. W.
Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Womersley, Sir W. J.


Loftus, P. C.
Rowlands, G.
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Lovat-Fraser, J. A.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Lumley, Capt. L. R.
Salmon, Sir I.



Lyons, A. M.
Samuel, Sir A, M. (Farnham)



Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)
Sandys, E. D.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward


McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.
Savery, Servington
and Dr. Morris-Jones.


McKie, J. H.
Scott, Lord William

Orders of the Day — MEDICINE STAMP DUTIES.

Ordered,
That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the duties of excise chargeable under the Medicines Stamp Act, 1802, the Stamp Act, 1804, and the Medicines Stamp Act, 1812, and any enactment amending those Acts, and to report thereon and make such recommendations for the alteration of those duties or otherwise as they think fit with a view to reforming the law relating thereto.

Mr. Acland, Mr. Baxter, Admiral Beamish, Mr. Benson, Sir Reginald Blair, Mr. Cary, Sir John Ganzoni, Mr. George Hall, Mr. Hardie, Mr. Haslam, Mr. Lewis Jones, Mr. Keeling, Mr. Lathan, Captain Ramsay, and Sir Arnold Wilson nominated Members of the Committee.

Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.

Ordered,
That Five be the quorum."—[Sir G. Penny.]

Orders of the Day — GAS PRICES.

Resolved,
That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of Lords and Commons be appointed to enquire into the powers of regulating charges possessed by the South Metropolitan Gas Company and other gas companies authorised to operate under a basic price and basic dividend system, to consider whether adequate protection is afforded to the interests of the different classes of gas consumers under such powers, and to report what action, if any, is necessary."—[Sir G. Penny.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

The remaining Order was read, and postponed.

ADJOURNMENT.

Resolved, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Captain Margesson.]

Adjourned accordingly at Ten Minutes after Eleven o'Clock.